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
Various sources of input in SLA
Modified
speech
1. Authentic and pedagogic materials and books
L2
Native
learner
2. Foreigner talk: native-nonnative speaker talk speaker/
teacher/
learner
3. Teacher talk: student-teacher talk
4. Interlanguage talk: learner-learner talk
5. The learners’ own Interlanguage
Various types of input in SLA
Authentic
Positive
evidence Simplified
Modified
Input Elaborated
Grammatical
Preemptive
rules
Negative Overt error
Explicit correction
evidence
Simple
Reactive
Taken from Long (2015) Implicit Recast
Complex
Importance of input in 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
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 Cue reliability Conflict validity
The extent to which a cue Whether a cue loses or wins
How often it is when it appears in competitive
always maps the same form
available in the input environments
onto the same function
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
noticing the
gap between
Input for meaning Input for learning input and their
(top-down processing) (bottom-up processing)
interlanguage
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.
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
We try to make input comprehensible
Adjustments
a) to communicate
b) to teach language
c) to socialize
Adjustments of input during negotiation of meaning
Linguistic-based adjustments Interactional adjustments
Ungrammatical input Grammatical Discourse repair (to
adjustments input adjustments Discourse management
(to avoid communication solve communication
problem) problem)
Omission of Simplification of
functors
language forms (just
learnt features)
Expansion Feedback
Clarification requests
Elaboration/regularization Communication Confirmation requests
Replacement/ (to simplify the learners’ strategies Comprehension checks
task of processing input- Repetitions
rearrangement
more than just learnt
features)
interactionally modified
pre-modified input
input
Negotiation of meaning (during interactional
adjustment)
trigger indicator
interaction
resolution response
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
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 talk
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.
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 Negative Modified
modified input evidence 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).
Modified output
other-initiated (uptake) self-initiated (monitoring)
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
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
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
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 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
Input / interaction in classroom settings
3) Employing Task-based language teaching by manipulating task features
Task features More positive Less positive
Information exchange Required (information Optional (opinion gap)
gap)
Information gap Two-way One-way
Outcome Closed (convergent) Open (divergent)
Topic Human-ethical Objective-spatial
Familiar Less familiar
Discourse domain Narrative Description
Collaborative Expository
Cognitive complexity Context-free Context-dependent
Detailed information Less detailed
information
Tasks dimensions hypothesized to impact L2 acquisition according to
interactionist hypothesis (Ellis, 2003)
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.
How
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
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.
