input , output ,interaction

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)

Volume 6 (2), June 2014; 136-149 Rahimi, S EISSN: 2289-2737 & ISSN: 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org

136

ON THE ROLE OF INPUT AND INTERACTION IN SECOND

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Soheil Rahimi

MA Holder in TEFL, Islamic Azad University Central Tehran Branch, Tehran , Iran

E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The significance of input has been always a major issue in second language acquisition theories

.Input is defined as "the language that is addressed to the second language learner either by a

native speaker or by another L2 learner and his interlocutors". In this review paper, first the

comprehensible input hypothesis as proposed by Krashen in the late 1970s is elaborated upon.

The input factors are also touched upon. The criticisms raised against Krashen's theory has led

to new lines of thinking in second language acquisition research. To mention a few the notions of

Intake, noticing hypothesis and output hypothesis are other relevant issues to be discussed and

elucidated. Finally, the interaction hypothesis as a vehicle to through which input can be made

comprehensible is defined.

KEYWORDS: Input, Interaction, second language acquisition, output, feedback, noticing.

INTRODUCTION

How learners come to construct second language grammar has long been of interest of many

researchers in English Language Teaching and Second Language Acquisition. And questions

about the kind of language available to learners, theoretical consequences of having such

knowledge available, and the significance of language use all have prevailed the literature and

different positions have been adopted, e.g. 'nature versus nurture' (Ellis, 1994; Gass, 2003;

Lightbrown & Spada, 1999). While the nature position claims that the learner comes to the

learning situation equipped with innate knowledge about language, the nurture position assigns a

greater role to the environment, that is, the interaction in which the learners engage ( Ellis, 1994;

Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005; Gass, 2003).

Researchers in SLA who investigate learning from an interactionist perspective look at two main

issues: (a) input and (b) the conversational interactions in which learners are involved (Gass,

2003). Input is defined as "the language that is addressed to the second language learner either by

a native speaker or by another L2 learner and his interlocutors" (Ellis, 1985, p.127). Input has a

history behind it which goes back as late as 1940s when behaviorist views were widespread. In

behaviorist views of language learning, input was central to an understanding of how learners

acquired a language. There, imitation and habit formation were regarded as central in this process

(Gass, 2003). But the importance faded away as behaviorism came under attack and input gave

way to the sort of acquisition research in which much attention was given to the nature of the

mailto:[email protected]



137

internal linguistic resources available to a learner in the learning task (ibid.). These nativist views

considered input a trigger for the language acquisition device (Brown, 2007 .(

Then, the third school of thought, constructivism, gained strength. Constructivism emphasizes the

importance of social contexts. Vygotsky can be regarded as the most famous figure whose ideas

actually triggerd the social constructivism. According to Vygotskian social constructivism ,social

interaction , purposeful and meaningful functioning in social context through language is the

basis of acquisition, because human beings develop their linguistic competence through

interaction with others .But it should be noted that we can categorize constructivists into two

types, including those who believe that language acquisition is the result of both our innate

language ability as well as interaction , and those who believe social interaction is the only cause

of language acquisition (ibid) .

But perhaps it was Krashen who brought the concept of input to the scene of second language

studies again when he proposed his Monitor Model (Krashen, 1985) which encompassed live

different hypotheses one of which was termed "Comprehensible Input hypothesis ."

COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT HYPOTHESIS

Krashen , a well-known scholar in the field of SLA ,strongly believed in the effectiveness of

comprehensible input, and considered it as an indispensable component in L2 acquisition because

acquisition can occur as long as learners have access to comprehensible input. Comprehensible

input is defined as second language input just beyond the learner's current second language

competence , in terms of its syntactic complexity. Krashen (1985) defined L2 learners' current

stage as I, and their next stage as i+1. From this point of view, learners should receive input

which goes a little beyond their current competence to drive interlanguage development forward.

Therefore, learners' language proficiency can be enhanced as long as there is enough

comprehensible input. Also, learners do not develop their speaking skills through direct

instruction; rather, learners' increasing ability to comprehend input help develop speaking skills

(Krashen, 1985). Furthermore, comprehensible input also helps learners to advance their

grammatical competence which indicates that receiving comprehensible input is far more vital for

learners than deliberately teaching grammar to them (Krashen, 1985). Speaking, according to his

position, is not a cause but an outcome for acquisition. Learners benefit from input which is

slightly beyond their current ability; however, it may still be difficult for them to comprehend

that input .

But how is input made comprehensible? According to Chaudron (1988, Ellis & Borkhuizen,

2005), input is made comprehensible through the use of simplified code by native speakers or

second language teachers. The use of simplified speech is called foreigner talk (FT) when

occurring at natural settings and is named teacher talk when taking place in an L2 classroom

(Ellis, 1985)... Teachers or NSs adjust their speech in speed, length of utterances, the use of

vocabulary. or syntactic complexity. Through the modifications of speech, students are more

likely to reach successful comprehension. Teachers or NSs, however, do not always adjust their



138

speech in the same way; rather, they simplify the speech according to learners' language

proficiency (Chaudron, 1988, Ellis & Borkhuizen, 2005).

The issue of FT or teacher talk raises the question of the effect of simplification. That is. do

teachers or NSs effectively modify their speech so as to aid learners to reach successful

comprehension? Ellis (1994) maintains that the use of less frequent words or overelaboration

may not promote students' comprehension but to hinder it. This notion demonstrates that the

quality of adjustments is more important than the quantity of them. When employing simplified

code effectively, teachers provide students with useful listening materials and thereby contribute

to their L2 acquisition. The Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985) explains the importance of

comprehensible input in 12 acquisition.

In spite of the significance and usefulness of comprehensible input, merely receiving

comprehensible input does not guarantee the acquisition since comprehensible input is a

necessary but not the only condition in language acquisition (Ellis, 1994; Gass,1997; Long,1996;

Schmidt, 1990).

Krashen (1985), in his input Hypothesis, highlights the significant role comprehensible input

plays in L2 acquisition, arguing that the success or failure of acquisition relies on whether or not

input is comprehensible to learners. The Input Hypothesis, however, has had its own critiques.

First, Rost (1990, cited in Ellis & Borkhuizen, 2005) claims that being able to understand the

meaning of input is not equal to the acquisition of it because one may still have no ideas of the

forms of sentences in a TL even though he or she successfully comprehends messages. Secondly,

White (1987, cited in Ellis & Borkhuizen, 2005) holds a similar view suggesting that being able

to comprehend input does not necessarily lead to acquisition; rather, acquisition occurs when

learners fail to understand the meaning of messages because the failure of comprehending input

draws their attention to unfamiliar linguistic items and hence results in acquisition .

According to Faerch and Kasper (1986 cited in Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005), some input is used for

comprehension when it is used in immediate communication, and in this case it is less likely to

result in acquisition because there is too little time for learners to pay attention to input. It is,

furthermore, claimed that acquisition does not occur if learners always use top-down models to

process information since the use of contextual clues or schematic knowledge does not induce

learners to notice their interlanguage and to attend to linguistic items; in other words, only when

learners become aware of gaps between their interlanguage and a target language and when they

consciously attend to input does language acquisition take place (Shardwood-Simth, 1986).

What is more, input has to be assimilated into intake for acquisition to occur. (ibid). Intake is

defined as "that part of input that the learner notices" (Schmidt, 1990, p.139). According to

Schmidt (1990), noticing is an indispensable condition in language acquisition, as he argues, "if

noticed, it becomes intake" (p.139). Intake, hence eventually takes place if learners consciously

notice input. The conversion of input into intake is necessary in L2 learning if one is to make

language acquisition occur, and Schmidt (1990) argues that



139

Learners need to notice input before assimilating it into intake. Learners cannot simply have the

ability to understand a general meaning of input but also have the capacity to syntactically

analyze input and produce comprehensible output because the ability to syntactically analyze

input and produce comprehensible output aids learners not only to convert input into intake but to

make them pay attention to their gaps between the correct as well as the incorrect use of a TL

eventually resulting in the acquisition of an L2 (p.143).

As far as input is concerned, accounts of successful L2 acquisition have highlighted the

significance of the quality of the input available to learners (e.g., Gass, 1997; Lightbown, 1992;

Swain, 1988).

INPUT FREQUENCY Input frequency affects the processing of phonology and phonotactics, reading, spelling, lexis,

morphosyntax, formulaic language, language comprehension, grammaticality, sentence

production, and syntax (Ellis, 2002). Sensitivity to input frequency entails that language users

must have registered patterns of occurrence in processing. These frequency effects are thus

compelling evidence for usage-based models of language acquisition, which emphasize the role

of input (Ellis & Collins, 2009).

TYPE AND TOKEN FREQUENCY Token frequency counts how often a particular form appears in the input(Ellis & Collins, 2009)..

Type frequency, on the other hand, refers to the number of distinct lexical items that can be

substituted in a given slot in a construction, whether it is a word-level construction for inflection

or a syntactic construction specifying the relation among words(Ellis & Collins, 2009)..

The productivity of phonological, morphological, and syntactic patterns is a function of type

rather than token frequency (Bybee & Hopper, 2001). This is so for the following reasons: (a)

The more lexical items that are heard in a certain position in a construction, the less likely it is

that the construction is associated with a particular lexical item and the more likely it is that a

general category is formed over the items that occur in that position; (b) the more items the

category must cover, the more general are its criterial features and the more likely it is to extend

to new items; and (c) high type frequency ensures that a construction is used frequently, thus

strengthening its representational schema and making it more accessible for further use with new

items (Bybee & Thompson, 2000).

RECENCY

Cognitive psychological research shows that three key factors determine the activation of

memory schemata–frequency, recency, and context (Anderson & Schooler, 2000). Language

processing also reflects recency effects. (Ellis & Collins, 2009). This phenomenon is known as

priming and may be observed in our phonology, conceptual representations, lexical choice, and

syntax (McDonough & Trofimovich, 2008).



140

FORM (SALIENCE AND PERCEPTION(

The perceived strength of stimuli is commonly referred to as salience (Ellis & Collins, 2009)..

Low salience cues tend to be less readily learned. Ellis (2006) summarized the associative

learning research, demonstrating that selective attention, salience, expectation, and surprise are

key elements in the analysis of all learning, animal and human alike.

As the Rescorla–Wagner model (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972) encapsulates, the amount of learning

induced from an experience of a cue–outcome association depends crucially on the salience of

the cue and the importance of the outcome.

FUNCTION

Prototypicality of Meaning: Categories have graded structure, with some members being better

exemplars than others. In the prototype theory of concepts (Rosch & Mervis, 1975; Rosch,

Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & Boyes-Braem, 1976), the prototype as an idealized central description

is the best example of the category, appropriately summarizing the most representative attributes

of a category (Ellis & Collins, 2009).

Redundancy. The Rescorla–Wagner model (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972) also summarizes how

redundant cues tend not to be acquired. Not only are many grammatical meaning–form

relationships low in salience, but they can also be redundant in the understanding of the meaning

of an utterance(Ellis & Collins, 2009).

THE INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS

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(Brown, 2007; Long, 1996). The idea existed in the 1980s,but is usually credited

to Michael Long for his 1996 paper The role of the linguistic environment in second language

acquisition. There are two forms of the Interaction Hypothesis: the "strong" form and the "weak"

form. The "strong" form is the position that the interaction itself contributes to language

development. The "weak" form is the position that interaction is simply the way that learners find

learning opportunities, whether or not they make productive use of them (Brown, 2007).

Similarly to Krashen's input hypothesis, the interaction hypothesis claims that comprehensible

input is important for language learning. In addition, it claims that the effectiveness of

comprehensible input is greatly increased when learners have to negotiate for meaning (Brown,

2007). This occurs when there is a breakdown in communication which interlocutors attempt to

overcome. 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(Long, 1996). The strategies used when negotiating meaning may include slowing down

speech, speaking more deliberately, requests for clarification or repair of speech, or paraphrases.

Long (1996) believes that what makes input to be comprehensible is modified interaction, or

negotiation of meaning. Long claims that a crucial element in the language acquisition process is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-language_acquisition_theories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-language_acquisition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_proficiency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Long_(academic)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Krashen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensible_input

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensible_input

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(linguistics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_strategies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrase



141

the modified input that learners are exposed to and the way in which other speakers interact in

conversations with learners.

Long (1983, cited in Gass, 2002) investigates conversations between a native speaker (NS) and

non-native speaker (NNS) and proposes his interaction hypothesis as follows:

Negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments

by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input.

internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways. (cited

in Gass, 2002. p. 174).

In other words, interactional adjustments make input comprehensible, and comprehensible input

promotes acquisition, thus interactional adjustments promote acquisition (Lightbown & Spada,

1999). Long believes that when meaning is negotiated, input comprehensibility is usually

increased and learners tend to focus on salient linguistic features (cited in Gass, 2002, p. 174).

Gass (2002) summarizes Long's Interaction hypothesis as follows:

Speakers in conversations negotiate meaning. In the case of conversations between learners and

others, this negotiation will lead to the provision of either direct or indirect forms of feedback,

including correction, comprehension checks, clarification requests, topic shifts, repetitions, and

recasts. This feedback draws the learner's attention to mismatches between the input and the

learner's output (p.175) .

Negotiation of meaning leads to modified interaction, which consists of various modifications

that native speakers or other interlocutors make in order to render their input comprehensible to

learners. For example, native speakers in a conversation with non-native speakers often slow their

speech down, speaking more deliberately. At the discourse level, modifications include feedbacks

such as recasts, comprehension checks, clarification requests, self-repetition or paraphrase,

restatement and expansion of NNS statement and topic switches (Brown, 2007; Lightbown &

Spada, 1999).

Long (1996) claims that these modifications can provide greater transparency of semantic or

syntactic relationships for learners, and he further proposes that interactional modifications may

be the crucial factor in facilitating comprehension by NNSs.

Another reason that interaction aids L2 acquisition is that it allows learners to engage in

negotiation of meaning. Long (1996) defined negotiation as: The process in which, in an effort to

communicate, learners and competent speakers provide and interpret signals of their own and

their interlocutor's perceived comprehension, thus provoking adjustments to linguistic form.

conversational structure, message content, or all three, until an acceptable level of understanding

is achieved (p.418).

Negotiation of meaning fosters language acquisition because of the occurrence of interactional

modifications, as illustrated by Long (1996):



142

Negotiation for meaning and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments

by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input,

internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways (p. 451-

452( .

Negotiation of meaning takes place as the result of non-understanding utterances. In the process

of negotiation, learners not only pay attention to incomprehensible utterances but also attempt to

produce output.

Negotiation is understood as a joint effort in which interlocutors try to solve misunderstandings

for successful communication, no matter how such misunderstandings have been originated (Ellis

& Barkhuizen, 2005).

Two types of negotiation should be taken into consideration (ibid):

a) Negotiation of form occurs when the form of a language breaks down the flow of conversation.

Form negotiation is mostly found in teacher-learner interactions. As it is the teacher who is

interested in drawing the learner's attention towards formally incorrect and/or inappropriate

utterances.

b) Negotiation of meaning takes place ',viler,. interlocutors engage themselves in the clarification

of words and/or concepts to the satisfaction of both parties . This type of interaction applies to

both teacher-learner and peer interactions.

Negotiation of form and negotiation of meaning are "interactional routines that appear as side-

sequences to the main course of conversation and have in common the joint effort of both

interlocutors to deal with a communication problem" (Mackey, 1999, p. 559).

Ellis (1994) mentions experimental studies which have attempted to discover whether negotiation

leads to interlanguage development and whether modifications help acquisition at least where

vocabulary is concerned. However, he also claims that there has been no empirical test of the

claim that negotiation of meaning aids the acquisition of new grammatical features.

Originally Long‟s interaction hypothesis (1983, 1996) developed from work by Hatch (1978) on

the significance of conversation to the enhancement of grammar and from claims by Krashen

(1985) that comprehensible input is a necessary condition for the acquisition of second language.

This hypothesis‟s argument was that interaction facilitates acquisition because of the

comprehensible input which is provided through interaction and because of linguistic

modifications that occur in the conversation. Through one type of interaction, termed

negotiation by Long, Pica, Gass and Varonis, and others, nonnative speakers (NNSs) and their

interlocutors signal that they do not understand something (Gass & Varonis, 1994; Long, 1983,

1996; Pica, 1994). Via such interaction, learners receive more or different input and have more

opportunities for out-put (Swain, 1985, 1995). The interaction hypothesis has been further

refined and developed by Gass (1997), who emphasized the fact that the effects of interaction

may not be immediate, pointing out the importance of looking for delayed developmental effects

of interaction. Other summaries of interaction hypothesis claims and reviews of recent empirical

work can be found in Gass, Mackey, and Pica (1998).



143

PREMODIFIED INPUT IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERACTION

Premodified input has been studied by Pica and her colleagues (1994,cited in Mackey, 1999) in

the context of interaction. Premodified input is generally defined as input that has been carefully

targeted at the level of the learner in order to facilitate learner comprehension. Negotiation is

generally not necessary when input is premodified. Examples of premodified input may be found

in many second language textbooks. The linguistic structures are ordered in a supposed difficulty

hierarchy. For example, the simple present tense is usually presented early on in most ESL texts.

Examples, dialogues, and surrounding text are often premodified so that learners will not have

difficulties with comprehension( Mackey, 1999).

Conversational interaction that utilizes premodified input, such as partially scripted role plays, for

example, may yield better comprehension in that learners do not have to negotiate for meaning

and make adjustments. However, in terms of the interaction hypothesis, premodified input maybe

less beneficial for learners because their opportunities to listen for mismatches between their own

output and the target language are obviously limited when the input has been premodified to

ensure comprehension( ibid).

Mackey (1999) believes that premodified input is not as beneficial to the 'learner as negotiation

and contends that Learners seldom have occasions to misunderstand, negotiate for meaning, and

produce errors; and therefore opportunities for language learning as a result of their mistakes are

limited interaction hypothesis suggests that conditions and processes for second language

learning are met by negotiation for meaning and the resulting interactional modifications that take

place. Thus, premodified input, such as that obtained through scripted interaction, which results

in few or no opportunities for negotiation or misunderstandings, may not be helpful for SLA.

Learners who participate in negotiation in the context of interaction may have more learning

opportunities (p.560).

INTAKE, NOTICING AND FEEDBACK

Schmidt (1990) has proposed the „noticing hypothesis‟, which claims that conscious awareness

(noticing) is essential for the development of L2 (and, presumably, L1) proficiency (Brown,

2007). Schmidt has argued that „what learners notice in input is what becomes intake for

learning‟ (Schmidt, 1995, p. 20). Schmidt and Frota (1986) have also emphasised that „noticing

the gap‟ learners‟ awareness of the disparity between the input and their current interlanguage

(the developing system of knowledge of the target language) – enhances learning.

The term 'intake' is usually compared with input in SLA. The definition of this term intake is

controversial. Intake is usually considered in second language literature as an intermediate

process between the exposure to input and actual language acquisition (Faerch & Kasper, 1980;

Krashen, 1981; VanPatten, 1990). Kumaravadivelu (1994) reviews the term intake in the L2

literature and distinguishes between intake as a product or intake as a process (Kumaravadivelu,

1994). The product view identifies intake as a subset of input, before the input is processed by the

learner. The process view, however, considers as intake whatever comes after psycholinguistic



144

processing (Kumaravadivelu, 1994). Intake as a process originates in the part of the input

attended to by learners while processing the input.

The notion of intake, as defined above, is championed by a cognitive theory of second language

acquisition. According to a cognitive learning theory, learning is a complex skill, which involves

various techniques to overcome limitations in processing information and mind is a capacity

limited processor (Mitchell & Myles, 2004). When learners are presented with linguistic input,

and being limited in the amount of input they can attend and process (McLaughlin, 1987), they

select which features to pay attention to and transfers this information into short term memory. In

spite of the fact that learners process primarily for meaning when processing input (VanPatten,

1990), and that the amount of attention paid to linguistic data depends on the cognitive effort

required to perform a task, learners notice some of the input features and transfer them into long-

term memory or intake. Schmidt (1990, 1993) stresses the important role that awareness plays in

second language acquisition, and specially he seems to include awareness with attention as

central to noticing which, in turn, is the key issue in fuming input into intake.

Schmidt (1990) identifies three aspects of consciousness involved in language learning:

awareness, intention and knowledge. The first sense, consciousness as awareness, embraces

noticing. According to Schmidt (1995, p. 20), "the noticing hypothesis states that what learners

notice in input is what becomes intake for learning." Schmidt also states that a) whether a learner

deliberately attends to a linguistic form in the input or it is noticed purely unintentionally, if it is

noticed it becomes intake; and b) that noticing is a necessary condition for L2 acquisition.

It is apparent that Schmidt's noticing hypothesis and its role in language acquisition has attracted

some support as well as criticism. Ellis (1994, 1997), Lewis (1993) and Skehan (1998) in

particular espouse the view that noticing accounts for the way in which input becomes intake

prior to processing and availability for integration into a learner's developing interlanguage

system. Moreover, Gass (1988) asserts that noticing is the first stage of language acquisition,

Batstone refers to the importance of noticing by describing it as "the gateway to subsequent

learning" (1994, p. 100), and Lynch (2001) states that noticing is an important component of

successful language learning. Similarly, Sharwood-Smith (1981) and McLaughlin (1987)

advocate that noticing a feature in the input is an essential first step in language processing.

However, Sharwood-Smith, Rutherford and McLaughlin differ from Schmidt in that they

consider that noticing a feature in input may be a conscious or an unconscious process. They

dispute Schmidt and Frota's (1986) assertion that "noticing the gap" is in fact a conscious process.

Ellis (1997) also considers controversial the claim that "noticing the gap" is a conscious process

and acknowledges the validity of Krashen's (1982) argument that there are far too many features

of language for them all to be acquired consciously. In addition, perhaps the most well-

considered and detailed criticism comes from Truscott who concludes that "the foundations of the

hypothesis in cognitive psychology are weak¹" and "the hypothesis is not based on any rational

theory of language¹" (1998, p. 104).

Theoretical accounts on conditions for input processing indicate conditions which affect the

acquisition process. The first one is that comprehension of the message is necessary if learners



145

internalize L2 forms and structures encoded in the message (Krashen, 1981, 1985; Long, 1983).

The second condition is suggested by Swain (1985) who claims that learners need to be given the

opportunity to produce the language, that is to say, according to Swain, learner production of

modified output requires learners' attention to specific morphological and syntactical features

which, in turn, helps them to notice the gap between learners' interlanguage and target language.

Developed by Merrill Swain, the comprehensible output hypothesis states that learning takes

place when encountering a gap in the linguistic knowledge of the L2. By noticing this gap the

learner becomes aware of it and might be able to modify his output so that he learns something

new about the language. Although Swain does not claim that comprehensible output is solely

responsible for all or even most language acquisition, she does claim that under some conditions,

comprehensible output facilitates second language learning in ways that differ from and enhance

input due to the mental processes connected with the production of language. This hypothesis is

closely related to the Noticing hypothesis. Swain defines three functions of output: 1. Noticing

function: Learners encounter gaps between what they want to say and what they are able to say

and so they notice what they do not know or only know partially in this language. 2. Hypothesis-

testing function: When learners say something there is always a hypothesis underlying e.g. about

grammar. By uttering something the learners test this hypothesis and receive feedback from an

interlocutor. This feedback enables them, if necessary, to reprocess their hypothesis. 3.

Metalinguistic function: Learners reflect about the language they learn and hereby the output

enables them to control and internalize linguistic knowledge.

Swain (1995) has argued that it is the production of the language that forces learners to think

about syntax. Swain argued for the significant role of comprehensible output in the SLA process.

To investigate output, Swain and Lapkin (1995) used think-aloud procedures during dictogloss

tasks that they suggested may tap into some of learners‟ introspective processes. Swain and

Lapkin (1998) discussed what they termed “collaborative dialogues” in “language-related

episodes,” in which the learners talk about the language they are producing or writing. They

suggested that such conversations may be a source of second language learning.

Long's (1996) claim in the interaction hypothesis was that there is an important role in the SLA

process for negotiated interaction that elicits negative feedback. According to Long, this feedback

may induce noticing of some forms: "it is proposed that environmental contributions to

acquisition are mediated by selective attention and the learner's developing L2 processing

capacity... negative feedback obtained in negotiation work or elsewhere may be facilitative of SL

development" (p. 414).

Another source of negative feedback currently receiving attention in the SLA literature is recasts

(Gass, 2003). Recasts have been generally defined as "being a targetlike way of saying something

that was previously formulated in a nontarget-like way" (Mackey, 1999, p,562). Long (1996)

pointed out that recasts are often ambiguous; a learner might not be able to determine whether

negative feedback is a model of the correct. version or a different way of saying the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merrill_Swain&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noticing_hypothesis



146

Some researchers believe that if learners are to make use of the possible benefits of interaction,

they must not only comprehend the SL data but must also notice the mismatch between the input

and their own interlanguage system (Gass. 1997). Ellis (1994) also claimed that the acquisition

process includes the procedures of noticing, comparing, and integrating, and that interaction that

actually requires learners to modify their initial input may facilitate the process of integration.

Thus, researchers have claimed that if interaction is to affect the learners' interlanguage, learners

may need to notice the gap between their interlanguage form and the second language alternative

(Gass, 1997; Schmidt. 1990). Gass (2003) points out that "nothing in the target is available for

intake into a language learner's existing system unless it is consciously noticed" (p. 244).

Noticing or attention to form may be facilitated through negotiated interaction. It has been argued

that during negotiation for meaning, when learners are struggling to communicate and are

engaged in trying to understand and to be understood, their attention may be on language form as

well as meaning (Gass, 1997).

CONCLUSION

The role input in SLA has been so crucial. The dominance of popularity of input goes back to

Krashen‟s input hypothesis. The Input Hypothesis claims that an important "condition for

language acquisition to occur is that the acquirer understand (via hearing or reading) input

language that contains structure 'a bit beyond' his or her current level of competence .... If an

acquirer is at stage or level i, the input he or she understands should contain i + 1". In this paper,

first the comprehensible input hypothesis as proposed by Krashen was elaborated upon. Then

some of the factors that have been reported to influence input processing in second language

acquisition were touché upon. Input and intake were distinguished from each other. Intake was

defined as the input which is noticed. finally, the interaction hypothesis as a vehicle through

which input can be made comprehensible was explained.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R., & Schooler, L. J. (2000). The adaptive nature of memory. In E. Tulving & F. I.

M. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 557– 570). London: Oxford

University Press.

Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brown, H., D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. Fourth Edition: White

Plains, NY: Longman .

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New Jersey:

Prentice Hall Regents.

Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (Eds.). (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure.

Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Bybee, J., & Thompson, S. (2000). Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic

Society, 23, 65–85.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



147

Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition.

New York: Blackwell.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford university Press .

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for

theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 24, 143–188.

Ellis, N. C. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics,

27, 1–24.

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Ellis, N., & Collins, L. (2009). Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency,

form, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 329-355.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1980). Processes and strategies in foreign language learning and

communication. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 5, 47-118.

Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: a framework for second language studies. Applied

Linguistics, 9, 198-217

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gass, S. M. (2002). Interactionist perspectives in SLA. In R. Kaplan (ed.). Handbook of

Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press (pp. 170-181).

Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, eds. C.

J. Doughty and M. H. Long. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Pp. 224-255.

Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language

acquisition: Introduction to the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 299-307.

Gass, S., & E. Varonis (1994). Input, Interaction and Second Language Production. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283-302.

Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.) Second

language acquisition: A book of readings (p. 401-435). Rowley: MA.: Newbury House.

Krashen, S.D. (1985), The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications, New York: Longman.

Lightbown, P. M. (1992). Getting quality input in the second/foreign language classroom. In C.

Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet, (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary and cross-

cultural perspectives on language study (pp. 187–197). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Krashen, S. (1979). A response to McLaughlin, The monitor model: Some methodological

considerations. Language Learning, 29, 151-167.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York:

Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit

learning of language, (pp. 45-77). London: Academic Press.

Kumaravadivelu. (1994). "Intake factors and intake processes in adult language learning" Applied

Language Learning, 5(1), 33-71.



148

Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

Lightbown, P. M., and Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Lynch, T. (2001). Seeing what they mean: transcribing as a route to noticing. ELTJ 55(2), 124-

132.

Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research.

TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-382.

Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second

language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115-141). New York: Newbury House.

Long, M. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In

W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 413-68. San

Diego: Academic Press.

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of

question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557-587.

McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2008). Using priming methods in second language

research. London: Routledge.

Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories (2nd edition). Arnold.

London.

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second Language Learning. Baltimore, MD: Edward

Arnold.

Pica, T. (1996). Second Language Learning Through Interaction: Multiple perspectives. Working

Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12(1), 1 – 22.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on Negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning

conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493 – 527.

Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the

effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy

(Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64–99). New York:

Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233.

Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects

in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,

11, 129-158.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 13, 206-226.

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of

attention and awareness. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign

language teaching and learning (Technical Report No. 9) (pp. 1-64). Honolulu:

University of Hawai'i at Manoa.

Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A

case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn:

Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury

House.

http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/SCHMIDT%20Developing%20basic%20conversational%20ability%20in%20a%20second%20language.pdf

http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/SCHMIDT%20Developing%20basic%20conversational%20ability%20in%20a%20second%20language.pdf



149

Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied

Linguistics, II, 159-169.

Sharwood-Smith, M. (1986) Comprehension vs. acquisition: Two ways of processing input.

Applied Linguistics, 7 (3), 239–256.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In. G. Cook and G.

Seidhofer (Eds.) Principles and practices in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G.

Widdowson (p. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A

step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391

Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. SLA Research, 14,

103-135.

Van Patten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: an experiment in

consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.

input , output ,interaction

Documents

Transcript of input , output ,interaction