Interaction hypothesis

Last updated

The interaction hypothesis is a theory of second-language acquisition which states that the development of language proficiency is promoted by face-to-face interaction and communication. [1] Its main focus is on the role of input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. [2] It posits that the level of language that a learner is exposed to must be such that the learner is able to comprehend it, and that a learner modifying their speech so as to make it comprehensible facilitates their ability to acquire the language in question. [3] The idea existed in the 1980s, [4] [5] and has been reviewed and expanded upon by a number of other scholars but is usually credited to Michael Long.

Contents

Outline

The interaction hypothesis states that (1) Comprehensible input is a requirement for second language acquisition, and (2) Input is made comprehensible to the learner via negotiations for meaning in conversations. Later responses, i.e. from Teresa Pica, also include a third pillar stating that (3) participation in tasks in which communication is necessary and in which participants share a symmetrical role relationship promote more opportunities for meaning negotiation. [6]

Similar to Krashen's input hypothesis, the interaction hypothesis claims that comprehensible input, which is characterized as a variety of language that can be understood by a learner, [3] is important for language learning. There are a number of ways in which input may be modified for the benefit of the learner. For example, a native speaker of a language may use foreigner talk when addressing a non-native speaker: this kind of modified input entails slowed speech, greater articulation, and simplified vocabulary. [7] In addition, it claims that the effectiveness of comprehensible input is greatly increased when learners have to negotiate for meaning. [8] This occurs when there is a breakdown in communication which interlocutors attempt to overcome. [9] One of the participants in a conversation will say something that the other does not understand; the participants will then use various communicative strategies to help the interaction progress. Many different strategies may be employed by interlocutors: for example, they may request for clarification (e.g. "What do you mean?") or provide a comprehension check (e.g. "Do you know what I mean?"). Negotiation strategies such as clarification requests, confirmation checks, recasts (rephrasing an incorrect sentence with the correct structure), and comprehension checks are considered implicit feedback, while corrections and metalinguistic explanations are explicit feedback. [2] The difference between modified interaction and modified input is that in the latter, participants may engage with one another and their communication is dynamic, whereas in the former the information given to the learner is static and is not open for interaction. [10] As a result, the interactional structure of a two-way conversation or task then elicits the most modifications since the dynamic aspect forces the participants to negotiate for meaning. [11]

Interactions provide a context for learners to receive feedback on the correctness or incorrectness of their language use. Interactions often result in learners receiving negative evidence. [9] [8] That is, if learners say something that their interlocutors do not understand or that is ungrammatical, after negotiation the interlocutors may model the correct language form. Conversely, positive evidence is confirmation that what a learner has said is grammatical. In doing this, learners can receive feedback on their production and on grammar that they have not yet mastered. [8] Individual differences may also affect negative feedback and its effectiveness when each learner has their own preferences for types of negative feedback. The process of interaction may also result in learners receiving more input from their interlocutors than they would otherwise. [9] Furthermore, if learners stop to clarify things that they do not understand, they may have more time to process the input they receive. This can lead to better understanding and possibly the acquisition of new language forms. [8] Finally, interactions may serve as a way of focusing learners' attention on a difference between their knowledge of the target language and the reality of what they are hearing; it may also focus their attention on a part of the target language of which they are not yet aware. [12] A drawback is that in simplifying the input to make it comprehensible, modification takes away from the acquisition of complex structures. [11]

Primacy of interaction

Although there are several studies that link interaction with language acquisition, [13] not all researchers subscribe to the idea that interaction is the primary means by which language proficiency develops. [14] In a survey of the literature on the subject, Larsen-Freeman and Long say that interaction is not necessary for language acquisition; they do say, however, that it helps in certain circumstances. [15] Gass and Selinker claim that as well as interaction facilitating learning, it may also function as a priming device, "setting the stage" for learning rather than being the means by which learning takes place. [12] In addition, Ellis notes that interaction is not always positive. He says that sometimes it can make the input more complicated, or produce amounts of input which overwhelm learners. According to Ellis, this can happen if interlocutors use lengthy paraphrases or give complex definitions of a word that was not understood, and he comes to the conclusion that the role of interaction in language acquisition is a complex one. [8] This conclusion is mirrored in Stephen Krashen’s work, in his description of the affective filter. This phenomenon occurs when learners are given information too far beyond their own level of comprehension which then causes them to disengage with the L2 producing an inhibitory "filter" of information. [16]

Historical development

Stephen Krashen

In his 1980 work The Input Hypothesis, [16] Stephen Krashen proposes that second language acquisition only occurs when the learner is exposed to comprehensible input that is just beyond their current level of understanding. This input hypothesis is characterized as i + 1, in which i represents the learner’s current language level and + 1 represents the following level of language acquisition. Evidence to support this claim comes in the form of speech that is modified for a learner’s benefit, such as foreigner talk and teacher talk, in which speech is slowed or simplified for ease of listener comprehension. This hypothesis provided the groundwork that would later be further developed by Michael Long, to whom the interaction hypothesis is most closely associated.

Michael Long

Michael Long first developed the interaction hypothesis in his 1981 work titled "Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition". [7] In this paper, based on indirect evidence, he proposes that modified input and modified interaction when combined facilitate second language acquisition more efficiently than other alternatives (e.g. modified input but unmodified interaction). In this work, similar to Krashen, Long believes comprehensible input to be a crucial factor in second language acquisition and that a lack of it will lead to little or no language acquisition at all. His views on comprehensible input later changed in his 1989 work titled "Task, group, and task-group interactions" in that comprehensible input may not be sufficient. [17]

In his 1996 work most closely associated with the formal interaction hypothesis, "The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition", [11] Long describes the kind of positive and negative evidence supplied by interlocutors during negotiations of meaning that can facilitate second language acquisition. Indirect evidence from past studies concerning L1 acquisition and sociolinguistic characteristics of non-native speakers are used to support the theory. Along with the influence of Krashen’s work concerning the input hypothesis, Long’s interaction hypothesis was partly influenced by Evelyn Marcussen Hatch’s 1978 work on interaction and discourse analysis. Like Hatch, he notes that interaction can develop acquisition by guiding their production. This idea that negotiating for meaning when there is a breakdown in communication is beneficial to language development is also tied to Merrill Swain’s 1985 comprehensible output hypothesis which argues that the demands of negotiating ways to express output in a comprehensible manner for the interlocutor aids learners in their second language development. [18] The revised version of the interaction hypothesis that is shown in Long’s 1996 paper places more emphasis on noticing and corrective feedback. Negotiation of meaning is shown to encourage the process of noticing. [11]

Interaction is beneficial for second language acquisition because it also gives the learner opportunities to use production through conversations. [6]

Teresa Pica

In her 1987 work in collaboration with Richard Young and Catherine Doughty titled "The Impact of Interaction on Comprehension" [19] Teresa Pica describes two kinds of linguistic environments in to which the interaction hypothesis applies: in which input is modified for the learner’s comprehension, as found in instructional settings; and in which both conversation participants modify their own output so as to make themselves understood (i.e. when they both negotiate meaning) as found in naturalistic settings. According to the interaction hypothesis, the second environment leads to greater engagement with the language and thus leads to greater learner acquisition.

In her 1987 work "Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom" [20] Teresa Pica also posits that interactions including negotiations of meaning between a teacher and a student may not be as effective for the acquisition of a second language due to the imbalance of the teacher-student relationship. An example of this imbalance is students refraining from making clarification requests in effort to avoid their being perceived as challenging the teacher’s knowledge. Rather, interactions between students are thought to be more effective since their relationship to one another is equal. Thus, she submits that an additional third pillar of the core hypothesis must be added: that in addition to the requirement for (1) comprehensible input and (2) negotiation of meaning, (3) interlocutor relationship balance and shared communicative goals is also required for more effective second language acquisition.

Pica also explains that negotiations of meaning do not always elicit the modification result that is expected or intended from the learner. Some modifications in negotiation do not prompt the same kinds of modifications. A confirmation check is less likely to cause a learner to modify their sentence than a clarification request because they only have to confirm with a simple answer instead of elaborate and restructure their response for clarity. [11]

Rod Ellis

In his 1991 work titled "The Interaction Hypothesis: A Critical Evaluation", [6] Rod Ellis discusses Long’s version of the interaction hypothesis and proposed some revisions based on studies and other academic interpretations of the hypothesis that were available at the time. Notably, he introduces a revised version of the hypothesis, which is characterized as: (1) Comprehensible input is useful for learners but is neither necessary nor sufficient for L2 acquisition; (2) Acquisition is made possible via input modifications (i.e. negotiation of meaning) but only if the learners both comprehend the input and are able to adopt differences into their own output; (3) Interaction situations that force learners to modify their output promotes their L2 learning. This revision is based on the lack of direct evidence supporting the original hypothesis, but that indirect evidence is nonetheless adequate to maintain some level of the theory. Additionally, this revision would allow the theory to be tested empirically, since it more clearly defines the relationship between acquisition, comprehension, and input.

Ellis’s later 2008 work titled The study of second language acquisition [21] relates the newer version of the interaction hypothesis to Focus-on-Form instruction which uses a communicative task with a focus on meaning to bring attention to form.

Limitations and criticisms

Earlier versions of the interaction hypothesis, particularly those of Krashen and Long, argue that comprehensible input is both necessary and sufficient for language development, [7] [16] but further research has provided evidence that comprehensible input is in fact not sufficient for second language acquisition by itself. [11] Comprehensible input may in some cases hinder learning because learners may be able to understand the meaning of a sentence without realizing that they do not understand all of the individual components such as lexical or grammatical items.

If input is simplified too much in order to become comprehensible, there may no longer be new complex features for the learner to notice. The learner may also focus too much on the meaning of the sentence that they have no leftover mental resources to pay attention to the linguistic features. The reasoning of when and how interactional modifications facilitate comprehension is not yet fully understood and requires more research. Rather than complete abandonment, revision of the hypothesis is proposed. [6]

Negotiation may not be as effective for beginner learners as it is for intermediate learners because beginners may not have the language knowledge needed for negotiation. [21]

See also

Related Research Articles

Stephen D. Krashen is an American linguist, educational researcher and activist, who is Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of Southern California. He moved from the linguistics department to the faculty of the School of Education in 1994.

A second language (L2) is a language spoken in addition to one's first language (L1). A second language may be a neighbouring language, another language of the speaker's home country, or a foreign language. A speaker's dominant language, which is the language a speaker uses most or is most comfortable with, is not necessarily the speaker's first language. For example, the Canadian census defines first language for its purposes as "the first language learned in childhood and still spoken", recognizing that for some, the earliest language may be lost, a process known as language attrition. This can happen when young children start school or move to a new language environment.

TPR Storytelling is a method of teaching foreign languages. TPRS lessons use a mixture of reading and storytelling to help students learn a foreign language in a classroom setting. The method works in three steps: in step one the new vocabulary structures to be learned are taught using a combination of translation, gestures, and personalized questions; in step two those structures are used in a spoken class story; and finally, in step three, these same structures are used in a class reading. Throughout these three steps, the teacher will use a number of techniques to help make the target language comprehensible to the students, including careful limiting of vocabulary, constant asking of easy comprehension questions, frequent comprehension checks, and very short grammar explanations known as "pop-up grammar". Many teachers also assign additional reading activities such as free voluntary reading, and there have been several easy novels written by TPRS teachers for this purpose.

Rod Ellis is a Kenneth W. Mildenberger Prize-winning British linguist. He is currently a research professor in the School of Education, at Curtin University in Perth, Australia. He is also a professor at Anaheim University, where he serves as the Vice president of academic affairs. Ellis is a visiting professor at Shanghai International Studies University as part of China’s Chang Jiang Scholars Program and an emeritus professor of the University of Auckland. He has also been elected as a fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand.

Second-language acquisition (SLA), sometimes called second-language learning—otherwise referred to as L2acquisition, is the process by which people learn a second language. Second-language acquisition is also the scientific discipline devoted to studying that process. The field of second-language acquisition is regarded by some but not everybody as a sub-discipline of applied linguistics but also receives research attention from a variety of other disciplines, such as psychology and education.

Sequential bilingualism occurs when a person becomes bilingual by first learning one language and then another. The process is contrasted with simultaneous bilingualism, in which both languages are learned at the same time.

Task-based language teaching (TBLT), also known as task-based instruction (TBI), focuses on the use of authentic language to complete meaningful tasks in the target language. Such tasks can include visiting a doctor, conducting an interview, or calling customer service for help. Assessment is primarily based on task outcome rather than on accuracy of prescribed language forms. This makes TBLT especially popular for developing target language fluency and student confidence. As such, TBLT can be considered a branch of communicative language teaching (CLT).

The comprehension approach to language learning emphasizes understanding of language rather than speaking it. This is in contrast to the better-known communicative approach, under which learning is thought to emerge through language production, i.e. a focus on speech and writing.

Language teaching, like other educational activities, may employ specialized vocabulary and word use. This list is a glossary for English language learning and teaching using the communicative approach.

In the field of second language acquisition, there are many theories about the most effective way for language learners to acquire new language forms. One theory of language acquisition is the comprehensible output hypothesis.

The input hypothesis, also known as the monitor model, is a group of five hypotheses of second-language acquisition developed by the linguist Stephen Krashen in the 1970s and 1980s. Krashen originally formulated the input hypothesis as just one of the five hypotheses, but over time the term has come to refer to the five hypotheses as a group. The hypotheses are the input hypothesis, the acquisition–learning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis and the affective filter hypothesis. The input hypothesis was first published in 1977.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Extensive reading</span> Reading longer, easier texts for extended periods of time

Extensive reading (ER) is the process of reading longer, easier texts for an extended period of time without a breakdown of comprehension, feeling overwhelmed, or the need to take breaks. It stands in contrast to intensive or academic reading, which is focused on a close reading of dense, shorter texts, typically not read for pleasure. Though used as a teaching strategy to promote second-language development, ER also applies to free voluntary reading and recreational reading both in and out of the classroom. ER is based on the assumption that we learn to read by reading.

The noticing hypothesis is a theory within second-language acquisition that a learner cannot continue advancing their language abilities or grasp linguistic features unless they consciously notice the input. The theory was proposed by Richard Schmidt in 1990.

The main purpose of theories of second-language acquisition (SLA) is to shed light on how people who already know one language learn a second language. The field of second-language acquisition involves various contributions, such as linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, and education. These multiple fields in second-language acquisition can be grouped as four major research strands: (a) linguistic dimensions of SLA, (b) cognitive dimensions of SLA, (c) socio-cultural dimensions of SLA, and (d) instructional dimensions of SLA. While the orientation of each research strand is distinct, they are in common in that they can guide us to find helpful condition to facilitate successful language learning. Acknowledging the contributions of each perspective and the interdisciplinarity between each field, more and more second language researchers are now trying to have a bigger lens on examining the complexities of second language acquisition.

Focus on form (FonF), also called form-focused instruction, is an approach to language education in which learners are made aware of linguistic forms – such as individual words and conjugations – in the context of a communicative activity. It is contrasted with focus on forms, in which forms are studied in isolation, and focus on meaning, in which no attention is paid to forms at all. For instruction to qualify as focus on form and not as focus on forms, the learner must be aware of the meaning and use of the language features before the form is brought to their attention. Focus on form was proposed by Michael Long in 1988.

The interface position is a concept in second language acquisition that describes the various possible theoretical relationships between implicit and explicit knowledge in the mind of a second language learner. Tacit knowledge is language knowledge that learners possess intuitively but are not able to put into words; explicit knowledge is language knowledge that learners possess and are also able to verbalize. For example, native speakers of Spanish intuitively know how to conjugate verbs, but may be unable to articulate how these grammatical rules work. Conversely, a non-native student of Spanish may be able to explain how Spanish verbs are conjugated, but may not yet be able to use these verbs in naturalistic, fluent speech. The nature of the relationship between these two types of knowledge in second language learners has received considerable attention in second language acquisition research.

The natural approach is a method of language teaching developed by Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It aims to foster naturalistic language acquisition in a classroom setting, and to this end it emphasizes communication, and places decreased importance on conscious grammar study and explicit correction of student errors. Efforts are also made to make the learning environment as stress-free as possible. In the natural approach, language output is not forced, but allowed to emerge spontaneously after students have attended to large amounts of comprehensible language input.

Merrill Swain is a Canadian applied linguist whose research has focused on second language acquisition (SLA). Some of her most notable contributions to SLA research include the Output Hypothesis and her research related to immersion education. Swain is a Professor Emerita at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at the University of Toronto. Swain is also known for her work with Michael Canale on communicative competence. Swain was the president of the American Association for Applied Linguistics in 1998. She received her PhD in psychology at the University of California. Swain has co-supervised 64 PhD students.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to second-language acquisition:

Alison Mackey is a linguist who specializes in applied linguistics, second language acquisition and research methodology. She is currently a professor in the Department of Linguistics at Georgetown University. Her research focuses on applied linguistics and research methods.

References

  1. ↑ Johnson, Keith; Johnson, Helen, eds. (1999). "Interaction Hypothesis". Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics: A Handbook for Language Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. p. 174. ISBN   978-0-631-22767-0.
  2. 1 2 Gass, S. M., and Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  3. 1 2 Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages are Learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-454126-8
  4. ↑ Long, Michael (1985). "Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory". In Gass, Susan; Madden, Carolyn (eds.). Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. pp. 377–393. ISBN   978-0-88377-284-3.
  5. ↑ Ellis, Rod (1984). Classroom Second Language Development: A Study of Classroom Interaction and Language Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. p. 95. ISBN   978-0-08-031516-4.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Ellis, R. (1991). The Interaction Hypothesis: A Critical Evaluation. Language Acquisition and the Second/Foreign Language, 179. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED367161.pdf#page=191
  7. 1 2 3 Long, Michael H. (1981). "Input, Interaction, and Second-Language Acquisition". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 379 (1): 259–278. Bibcode:1981NYASA.379..259L. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42014.x. S2CID   85137184.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 Ellis, Rod (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford Introductions to Language Study. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. pp.  47–48. ISBN   978-0-19-437212-1.
  9. 1 2 3 Richards, Jack; Schmidt, Richard, eds. (2002). "Interaction Hypothesis". Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London New York: Longman. p. 264. ISBN   978-0-582-43825-5.
  10. ↑ Long, M. H. (1983). "Native speaker/Non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input1". Applied Linguistics. 4 (2): 126–141. doi:10.1093/applin/4.2.126.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press, 413 – 68.
  12. 1 2 Gass, Susan; Selinker, Larry (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course . New York, NY: Routledge. p.  350. ISBN   978-0-8058-5497-8.
  13. ↑ For an overview, see Gass, Susan; Selinker, Larry (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course . New York, NY: Routledge. pp.  353–355. ISBN   978-0-8058-5497-8.
  14. ↑ Brown, H Douglas (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. White Plains, NY: Longman. pp. 287–288. ISBN   978-0-13-017816-9.
  15. ↑ Larsen-Freeman, Diane; Long, Michael (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London, New York: Longman. pp.  143–144. ISBN   978-0-582-55377-4.
  16. 1 2 3 Krashen, S. (1980). The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman. https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iln/LING4140/h08/The%20Input%20Hypothesis.pdf
  17. ↑ Long, M. H. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawaii working papers in ESL, 8(2), 1-26. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED366184.pdf
  18. ↑ Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2013), How languages are learned. pp. 114-115. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
  19. ↑ Pica, Teresa; Young, Richard; Doughty, Catherine (1987). "The Impact of Interaction on Comprehension". TESOL Quarterly. 21 (4): 737–758. doi:10.2307/3586992. JSTOR   3586992.
  20. ↑ Pica, T. (1987). "Second-Language Acquisition, Social Interaction, and the Classroom". Applied Linguistics. 8: 3–21. doi:10.1093/applin/8.1.3.
  21. 1 2 Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.