The Interaction Hypothesis Essay Example

relationship between interaction and L2 acquisition. The first proposal central to Long’s hypothesis is that comprehensible input is essential for second language acquisition. In this claim, Long drew heavily from the work of Stephen Krashen.

Long agreed with Krashens hypothesis; that comprehensible input is required for L2 acquisition to take place however went on to claim that; “modifications to the interactional structure of conversation were “the most important and widely used way of making input comprehensible” (pp. 342)” (Ellis 91, pp. 6) Long stated that it is through interactions which involve negotiation of meaning allows input to become comprehensible. The term negotiation of meaning refers to modifications within the interaction used to tackle any communication problems which may arise.

The idea that L2 learners can benefit from interacting more capable speakers agrees with Vygotskian approaches to second language acquisition (SLA) which claims “Social Interaction is a mechanism for individual development, since in the presence of a more capable participant, the novice is drawn into, and operates within, the space of the expert’s strategic processes for problem solving. ” Hatch (1978) empirically proved a link between the elements used in L2 learners interactions and the rate of their interlanguage development, by using a discourse analysis approach in interpreting interactions involving both child and adult L2 learners.

Long also presents an account of the modifications NSs made to their output when dealing with NNSs. In a study carried out in 1980, Long reported on the interactional features of native English speakers addressing sixteen Japanese learners of English. The study showed that whilst NSs rarely modified the input they provided for the NNSs, interactional adjustments

appeared often. The analysis of “Foreigner Talk,” the language NSs use whilst addressing NNSs. Theorist have also categorised other forms of modified discourse such as teacher talk and interlanguage talk.

In order to fully evaluate the IH it is important to investigate the impact of these modifications. It is also important to be aware that in the main foreigner talk is a simplified but grammatically correct form of the language being acquired. This must be distinguished from ungrammatical foreigner talk which is socially marked and usually indicate that the NS feels socially superior to the NNS. This incorrect form of foreigner talk is generally believed to inhibit the learner’s interlanguage progression towards target like forms.

Pica and Doughty (1985) classified these interactional modifications further, as clarification requests, confirmation checks, comprehension checks and repetitions. Long considered modifications of this type to be interactionally modified features, as they came about as a natural part of interaction and distinguished them from modifications made before the interaction, such as those made by L2 teachers within classroom situations, which he reffered to as premodified input. The IH sought to demonstrate that interactionally modified input was more useful in SLA.

Teri Pica furthered Long’s hypothesis by empirically testing the claims made. In 1986, Pica, along with Young and Doughty, carried out a study designed to prove that input modifications are most helpful for SLA when they are the result of attempts to negotiate meaning, by comparing the effects of premodified and interactionally modified input. The study showed that such interactional modifications did result in improved comprehension which in turn, in accordance with Krashen’s Input hypothesis, would result in

acquisition.

Additionally, Pica’s study showed that “modifications of interaction were most effective in achieving comprehension when the when the learners had difficulty in understanding the input but were superfluous when the input was easily understood. ” pp. 747 However the study was flawed in that it did not take account of the fact that interactional modifications resulted in a greater quantity of input than the premodified input. This discrepancy could be seen to explain the better performance of those learners who were able to negotiate.

In 1989, Pica addressed this problem and carried out a similar study where both groups received the same amount of modified input. The results did not show a significant difference in the learners comprehension, but did suggest that negotiation of meaning could be most effective for learners with a low level of L2 competence. Pica also extended the IH by illustrating the effect of social relationships between the participants in L2 interactions. She showed that interactions were more beneficial to learners if all participants were regarded as having equivalent social status.

This theory was summarised by Ellis (1991) as follows; “A situation in which the conversational partners share a symmetrical role relationship affords more opportunities for interactional restructuring. ” (pp. 8) There is considerable evidence to support this part of the IH. Long and Sato (1983) showed that the social imbalance that results from teacher-dominated L2 classes, reduce the opportunity for learners to negotiate meaning. This research was furthered by Van Lier (1988) who proposed task based classroom activities designed to facilitate negotiation of meaning.

However, it is important to mention that empirical study surrounding the

IH does not always support the theories claims. For example there is still no direct evidence proving the effect of comprehensible input on rates of acquisition, although there is ample indirect evidence suggesting a connection. For example the silent people that some young children go through, and those comparative studies which show that learners who are supplied with comprehensible input perform better n the L2 than those who do not. The second claim of the hypothesis (which states that modified input facilitates comprehension) is both supported and contradicted by compelling empirical data. Kelch (1985) showed that a modified rate of speech improves comprehension amoungst NNSs. Blau (1982) showed a similar effect when the syntactical complexity of utterances was reduced and Chaudron (1983) demonstrated that increased redundancy also increased comprehension.

However, on the other hand a study by Dahl (1981) found that L2 learners often were not able to accurately judge the rate of speech in the L2 and Speidel et al (1985) showed simplifying syntax did not help improve the reading comprehension of L2 English learners. As theorists began to put more emphasize on the conscious processes involved in SLA, Long and Pica’s definition of the IH developed and in 1989 Long, though continuing to claim that comprehensible input was necessary for SLA, conceded that alone, it may not be sufficient for acquisition to take place.

Richard Schmidt (1990) advanced a theory regarding the conscious processes of L2 acquisition, in which he claimed that it was essential that learners “notice the gap” between native speech and learners interlanguage systems. He based this claim on a study (Schmidt and Frota 1986) which demonstrated a

connection between Schmidts own acquisition of Portuguese and the elements which he had recently noticed in the L2 input he received. This theory repositioned interaction means through which “noticing” took place.

However noticing does not always follow negotiation as Ellis (1991) highlights; “there is no guarantee that overt comparisons lead to the mental comparison which Schmidt hypothesises is necessary, but they surely create the conditions under which such mental comparisons are more likely to occur. ” (pp. 33) Ellis (1991) also helped shape the development of the IH. Critical of some aspects of Long’s theory, Ellis proposed a revised version of the IH, which centred on Schmidt’s noticing theory. Ellis saw the IH as a tool which facilitated learners to notice the discrepancies between their production of L2 and that of a NS.

Ellis (1991) stated that; “The position I seek to advance is that the role of input derived through interaction is primarily that of facilitating the process of noticing and comparison. ” (pp. 31) Ellis also challenged Long’s original claim that the quantity of modifications was more important than they quality. Ellis claimed that the reverse was true and most current theorists now place more emphasis on assessing the quality of modifications than merely counting the number of modifications which arise. The Comprehensible Input Hypothesis, proposed by Swain (1985) also forwarded the development of the IH.

Swain claims that learners need the opportunity to use the L2 in a meaningful way in order to fully acquire the L2 syntax. Long agreed with Swain’s claim that L2 learners develop their interlanguages as a result of breakdowns in communication when they are

subsequently forced to readjust their utterance following a clarification request. Therefore his developed IH considered that some forms of interactional modifications had more impact of SLA. In 1996, Long redefined the Interaction Hypothesis in order take into account the various critiques of the theory.

This revised hypothesis took into account the new proposals forwarded regarding individual cognitive processes. In this revised theory, Long (1996) claimed that; “Environmental contributions to acquisition are mediated by selective attention and the learner’s developing L2 processing capacity, and that these resources are brought together most usefully, although not exclusively, during negotiation of meaning. Negative feedback obtained during negotiation work or elsewhere may be facilitive of L2 development, at least for vocabulary, morphology, and language-specific syntax, and essential for learning certain specifiable L1-L2 contrasts. (pp. 417)

Susan Gass (2003) stated that “conversational interaction in a second language forms the basis for the development of the language rather than being only a forum for practice of specific language features. ” Since it was first proposed, the IH has usually been applied to, and tested within, a pedagogical L2 framework. Indeed, Allwright (1984) claimed that “everything that happens in the class room happens through interaction. ” (pp. 156) Long (1989) advocates the use of closed tasks (tasks with a finite set of solutions) and Pica (1990) claims that group work with the opportunity to negotiate meaning is necessary in L2 classrooms.

Both use the IH to substantiate these claims. Pedagogical strategies derived from the application of the IH are now commonly used by L2 teachers and are outlined by VanPatten (2002) as follows: “ Meaning should be at the centre

of the curriculum. In general communicative language teaching, the expression, interpretation and negotiation of meaning within the classroom is the primary focus. (... ) Learners develop underlying competence through their interaction with comprehensible, meaning bearing acquisition. ” (pp. 06)

From this we can conclude the IH has made a considerable advancement to L2 pedagogy. Ellis (1991) stated that “More recently language pedagogy has emphasized the need to provide learners with real communicative experiences. ” (pp. 79) The IH has facilitated the analysis of potential input modifications which has been able to identify which modifications are particularly helpful in L2 development and moreover, prescribed how to successfully apply the theory to L2 classrooms (ie through group orientated, closed tasks.