inputi-interaction in sla

7/28/2019 Inputi-Interaction in SLA

1/7

INPUT, INTERACTION and SLA

GROUP 6:

11B01096 FITRI FAJAR

11B01095 RAHMANIAR GUSRIANTI

GRADUATE PROGRAM

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MAKASSAR

2012


2/7

It is commonly believed that learning a second language involves learning the rules of

grammar of the second language (often in the form of memorization), along with vocabulary

items and correct rules of pronunciation (Gas and Selinker, 2001). This view implicitly assumes

that language use does not vary from a first language situation to various second language

situations, for all that would be needed to successfully carry on a conversation in a second

language.

Input

Earlier conceptualization of second language learning were based on a behaviorist view

in which the major driving force of language learning (at least for children) was the language to

which learners were exposed (the input). Because in that view, learning a language involved

imitations its primary mechanism, the language that surrounded learners was crucial importance.

Interest shifted to the internal mechanisms that a learner (children or adult) brings to the

language learning situation, which research focusing on innateness and the nature of the innate

system. Learners were viewed as creators of language systems; and, at least in the case of

children, the input they received was of minor importance. If learners only need to which of a

limited number of possibilities are represented in their language, then it is possible that only a

few instances of exposure are sufficient to trigger the appropriate language form. As aconsequence of this view, the significance of the input was minimized.

Corder in Gas and Selingker (2001), made an important distinction between what he

called input and intake. Input refers to what is available to the learner, whereas intake refers to

what is actually internalized by the learner. Anyone who has been in a situation of learning a

second/foreign is familiar with the situation in which the language one hears is totally

incomprehensible, to the extent that it may not even be possible to separate the stream of speech

into words. Whereas this is input, because it is available to the learner, it is not intake, because it

goes in one ear and out the other; it is not integrated into the current learner-language system.

This sort of input appears to serve no greater purpose for the learner than does that language that

is never heard. Conceptually, one can think of the input as that language (in both, spoken and

written form) to which the learner is exposed.


3/7

Interaction

Another area of SLA research focuses on how interaction contributes to second language

acquisition.Interaction refers to communication between individuals, particularly when they are

negotiating meaning in order to prevent a breakdown in communication (Ellis, 1999). Research

on interaction is conducted within the framework of the Interactive Hypothesis, which states that

conversational interaction "facilitates [language] acquisition because it connects input [what

learners hear and read]; internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention; and output

[what learners produce] in productive ways" (Long in Moss, 2003). Interaction provides learners

with opportunities to receive comprehensible input and feedback (Gass, Long, Pica in Moss

2003) as well as to make changes in their own linguistic output (Swain in Moss, 2003). This

allows learners to "notice the gap" (Schmidt & Frota in Moss, 2003) between their command ofthe language and correct, or target-like, use of the language.

Empirical research with second language learners supports the contention that engaging

in language interactions facilitates second language development. Findings from a study to

determine how conversational interaction affects the acquisition of question formation indicate

that interaction can increase the pace of acquisition (Mackey in Moss, 2003). Research on

interaction includes studies oftask-based language learning and teaching and focus on form.


4/7

Input/interaction in the classroom setting

Input and interaction in classrooms have been investigated by means of interaction

analysis, the study of teacher talk, and discourse analysis. I nteraction analysishas spawned

numerous category systems, some specifically designed for use in language classroom. Ingeneral, however, it sheds little light on input and interaction in classroom from the perspectives

of SLA. Allwright, for instance, purposes that classroom interaction be accounted for in terms of

three types of analysis: 1) a turn taking analysis, 2) a topic analysis, 3) a task analysis. Studies of

teacher talkindicate that similar kinds of modifications occur in the teachers language as those

observed in foreigner talk, although ungrammatical adjustments may be less common. Also

teachers may not be able to tune their speech finely in the one-to-many classroom situation.

Di scourse analysisshows that many classroom interactions follow an IRF (initiative-respond-

feedback) pattern, which restrict the opportunity to negotiate meaning. However, other types of

discourse also occur when the L2 is used for social purposes. Considerable differences between

natural and classroom environments arise, particularly when the focus is on form in language

lessons. These differences are not absolute; they vary in degree according to the type of

classroom and also the type of teaching. Learner-centered teaching in subject or immersion

classroom can lead to examples of interaction similar to those found in natural settings.

A comparison of natural and classroom language environments

There is often a general assumption that natural and classroom settings differ

substantially, particularly when the classroom environment involves the formal teaching of a L2.

For instance, Corder (1976) writes that learners do not use their interlanguage very often in the

classroom for what we may call normal or authentic communicative purposes. The greater

part of interlanguage data in the classroom is produced as a result of formal exercises and bears

the same relation to the spontaneous communicative use of language as the practicing of tennis

strokes does to playing tennis

However, although there are clear and obvious differences between natural and classroom

environments, it would be wrong to overemphasize these differences. The comparison between

natural and classroom environments as sources of input for SLA will depend on the frequency of

different types of interaction which occur in each setting. In particular, it will depend upon the

type of educational setting in which the L2 learners find themselves. As Krashen (1976)


5/7

comments, classrooms can afford opportunities of genuine communicative exchanges, while in

natural setting learners can engage in formal study.

The role of input and interaction in SLA

The primary factor affecting language acquisition appears to be the input that the learner

receives. Stephen Krashen took a very strong position on the importance of input, asserting

that comprehensible input is all that is necessary for second-language acquisition. Krashen

pointed to studies showing that the length of time a person stays in a foreign country is closely

linked with his level of language acquisition. Further evidence for input comes from studies on

reading: large amounts of free voluntary reading have a significant positive effect on learners'

vocabulary, grammar, and writing. Input is also the mechanism by which people learn languages

according to the universal grammarmodel.

The type of input may also be important. One tenet of Krashen's theory is that input

should not be grammatically sequenced. He claims that such sequencing, as found in language

classrooms where lessons involve practicing a "structure of the day", is not necessary, and may

even be harmful.

While input is of vital importance, Krashen's assertion that only input matters in second-

language acquisition has been contradicted by more recent research. For example, students

enrolled in French-language immersionprograms in Canada still produced non-native-like

grammar when they spoke, even though they had years of meaning-focused lessons and their

listening skills were statistically native-level. Output appears to play an important role, and

among other things, can help provide learners with feedback, make them concentrate on the form

of what they are saying, and help them to automatize their language knowledge. These processes

have been codified in the theory ofcomprehensible output.

Researchers have also pointed to interaction in the second language as being important

for acquisition. According to Long's interaction hypothesis the conditions for acquisition are

especially good when interacting in the second language; specifically, conditions are good when

a breakdown in communication occurs and learners must negotiate for meaning. The

modifications to speech arising from interactions like this help make input more comprehensible,

provide feedback to the learner, and push learners to modify their speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Krashenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensible_inputhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_immersionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensible_outputhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction_hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction_hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensible_outputhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_immersionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensible_inputhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Krashen


6/7

Second language acquisition relies on comprehensible input being available to the

internal processing mechanisms of the learner (Long, 1983b). The learner's focus must be on

meaningful communication and input that contains language forms which are due to be acquired

next (Krashen, 1981, 1982). Nevertheless, comprehensible input alone is an insufficient

condition for second language acquisition to occur. Input must become intake. Input is data that

the second language learner hears and intake is "that portion of the L2 which is assimilated and

fed into the interlanguage system" (Ellis, 1985, p.159). Exposure to comprehensible input as

posited in Krashsen's Input Hypothesis is therefore not enough (Krashen, 1980, 1981, 1982,

1985). Comprehensible input (CI) needs to become intake for learners to develop in their second

language (Ellis, 1985; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). Those learners who engage in the regular

use of their second language and receive the greater quantity of input will most likely

demonstrate a greater ability to use their second language (Larsen-Freeman, 1991).

Input is made comprehensible through modifying interactional structures rather than

through simplifying linguistic input (Long, 1983c). The interaction modifications used by native

speakers fall into two broad groups. Firstly, there are conversational strategies to avoid

conversational trouble. Secondly, discourse repair tactics may be used to repair conversation

when trouble happens. A third group combines strategies and tactics to include a slow pace of

speech, stress on key words, and repetition of utterances. Each group contains devices that the

native speaker uses in conversations with the non-native speakers to modify the interactional

structure. The process of such interactional modifications is described by Long (1983) as "the

negotiation of comprehensible input" (p.131). Negotiation that involves the restructuring and

modification of interaction may occur when second language learners and their interlocutors

have to work to achieve comprehensibility by "repeating a message verbatim, adjusting its

syntax, changing its words, or modifying its form and meaning in a host of other ways" (Pica,

1994b, p.494).

A number of different ways in exist for investigating the effects of input and interaction

in SLA. Many of these, however, necessitate a leap from description of input of language to

explanation of its effects. There is little hard research showing whether input and interaction are

important, and what aspects of SLA are affected. With regard to the route of SLA, input may

facilitate development by (1) providing the learner with ready-made chunks of language to


7/7

memorize and later analyze, (2) helping the learner to build vertical constructions, (3) modeling

specific grammatical form with high frequency, (4) ensuring that the input is one step ahead for

the learners existing knowledge (by providing comprehensible input) and (5) providing the right

affective climate to ensure that input becomes intake. With regard to the rate of SLA, a number

of studies have investigated the effects of input and interaction, with mixed success. However,

there are grounds for thinking that both the quantity and the quality of input are important. The

characteristics of an optimal learning environment can be deduced from studies of input and

interaction in both first and second language acquisition.

inputi-interaction in sla

Documents