Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Interaction hypothesis  by Atula Ahuja
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Interaction hypothesis by Atula Ahuja

4,669

Published on

Interaction Hypothesis is a Social Constructivism theory

Interaction Hypothesis is a Social Constructivism theory

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
4,669
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
162
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Based on this research Swain founded the Output Hypothesis. She found that even afetr spending years learning L2, the NNS learners fell significantly short of Native like abilities. This according to her was due to lack of opportunities for language use.
  • He argued that MODIFIED INTERACTION or DYNAMIC INTERPLAY between learners and others who have higher competence was the KEY . After interpersonal Interaction the learner engages in intrapersonal interaction to realize the form to make input comprehensible.
  • Comprehensible input= simplified input.
  • Long recommends 3 strategies in negotiating meaningNegotiation: step 1- interaction or conversation 2. Negative feedback- when the learner (usually non-native speaker) does not understand some part of conversation and expresses inability to understand and requests clarification 3. the misunderstood participant (the NS or speaker with higher competence) strives to make an effort to simplify the language to the learner’s level and making it ‘comprehensible’ for the non-native speaker.
  • Input hypothesis considered
  • The demand to produce comprehensible output push learners ahead in their development
  • Transcript

    • 1. Michael Long (1983, 1996) By Atula Ahuja
    • 2. Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Observations of immersion classes in Canada showed that NN learners continue to make certain kinds of grammatical errors even after many years of exposure to grammatically correct input. This is evidence that ONLY exposure or input is not enough to ensure acquisition. (Merrill Swain 1985)
    • 3. Interaction Theory Michael Long developed a theory in 1983, which agreed with Krashen on the need for comprehensible input, but held a view that it was not enough. He focused on how input could be made comprehensible.
    • 4. Interaction Hypothesis posits that input alone is not sufficient for language acquisition. Modified Interaction central SLA process. learner others Interaction hypothesis places emphasis on face- to face interaction and the form of language as a result.  Interaction Intrapersonal (nature- within) Interpersonal (nurture- others)
    • 5. Original formulation In 1983 Michael Long proposed: 1. Conversational Interaction between a more competent interlocutor and learner is an essential condition (if not sufficient) for SLA. Through it speakers modify their speech and interaction. 2. Modified interaction leads to negotiation of meaning, which makes input comprehensible. 3. Comprehensible input promotes SLA.
    • 6. Explanation o Modified interaction or input involves changes made in conversation. o Examples of conversational changes: elaboration, slower speech rate, gesture, additional contextual cues, comprehension checks, clarification requests.  Research has demonstrated that conversational adjustments can aid comprehension in the L2.
    • 7. Examples: modified input It has been observed that the proficient interlocutor automatically modifies their input to suit the level of the non-native speaker to make input comprehensible. A kindergarten teacher uses varying levels of proficiency to give instructions to: • NS: Now Ben, you have to make a great, big pointed hat. • NNS of Intermediate level: No, her hat is big, pointed. • NNS of low Intermediate level: Make hat big, tall. • NNS Beginner level: Big, big, big hat.
    • 8. Negotiating meaning Michael Long stressed on the importance of negotiation of meaning after noticing the impact of negative feedback during interaction. Just simplification of linguistic form does not make learning complete. Learners need to interact directly in order to reach mutual comprehension. Learners are interested in meaning, not form, but they begin to pay attention to form in order to understand the meaning form meaning
    • 9. Negative feedback In the conversation, interlocutor’s lack of comprehension is a type of negative feedback which happens while negotiating meaning. NNS: There’s a basin of flowers on the bookshelf. NS: a basin? NNS: base NS: a base NNS: (using gesture to show shape) yes, base NS: Oh, you mean VASE! NNS: Vase (Macky, Guss, McDonough 2000) Learner →opportunity → infer the problem was with their pronunciation.
    • 10. Negotiating meaning: 3 Cs 1. Comprehension Check through conversation • The speaker asks questions to determine whether the listener (say NNS) has understood the message. “I went to the New Year eve party.” Do you understand? New Year eve? 2 Clarification check during negative feedback • Expression designed to elicit clarification or to seek assistance in understanding. 1. “Excuse me, what’s that? 3 Confirmation Check through modified input • Expression to illicit confirmation that the utterance has correctly understood “The evening before the New Year. On 30th? New Year’s eve. Yes? or “Is this what you meant?”
    • 11. Merrill Swain’s input After observations at the immersion classes in Canada, in 1985, Swain hypothesized that those students failed to acquire native- like competency due to insufficient opportunities for using language. She claimed that the need to produce language forces learners to move from Semantic→ Syntactic knowledge, paying attention to form. Negative feedback obtained during negotiating meaning facilitates vocabulary, morphology, syntax and pronunciation.
    • 12. In I996, Long subsumed few aspects of Input Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis Input Hypothesis Interaction Hypothesis Comprehensible input necessary and sufficient for acquisition. Comprehensible input important but not sufficient for acquisition. Output has no direct role in acquisition. Output is necessary for development of language
    • 13. Revised version(1996)  When the learner does not understand the fellow participant, learning becomes more effective. Interaction that elicits negative feedback is important for the learner to notice the gap.  Act of ‘negotiating meaning’ fills that gap.  Encompassed a component of Comprehensible Output hypothesis by Swain in Interaction theory. Interaction=> Negative Feedback=> Noticing=> Modified input => Production of output
    • 14. References • ROTHMAN, J. (2009), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction edited by VANPATTEN, BILL, & JESSICA WILLIAMS. The Modern Language Journal, 93: 648–649. • Larsen-freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research, London: Longman. • Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-193. • Long, M. (1996) The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. • • • • • • W.C. Ritchie and T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 413468. Sand Diego, CA: Academic Press Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company Pasty M, Lightbown & Spada N. (2006) How Languages are Learnt, Oxford University Press, USA; 3 edition http://www.virginia.edu/mesa/Events/Pedagogy_Workshop/Pedagogy_Workshop_ Documents/Pedagogy.lightbown.part1.pdf
    • 15. of Interaction Hypothesis
    • 16. Strength  Native speaker and non-native speaker interlocutors can and will work actively to achieve mutual understanding.  Two –way communication
    • 17. Strength  These negotiations involve both linguistic and interactional modifications  Offers repeated opportunities to ‘notice’ aspects of target language form  Offers opportunities to perceive and process some piece of language the learner might miss otherwise Bob: So where’s Dave? Tom: He vacation Bob: He’s on vacation? Tom: Yes, on vacation
    • 18. Strength  Non-native speaker participant in ‘negotiations for meaning’ can use language items made available to them by their native speaker interlocutors  Facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways NS: NNS: NS: NNS: NS: There’s a pair of reading glasses above the plant A what? Glasses. Reading glasses to see the newspaper? glassi? you wear them to see with, if you can’t see. Reading glasses. NNS: Ahh ahh glasses to read you say reading glasses. NS: Yeah.
    • 19. Strength  Learners who receive negative feedback, relating to particular target language structures, can in some circumstances be significantly advantaged when later tested on those structures
    • 20. Strength  Feedback is a natural part of the conversation, not as error correction  Better than comprehension checks Do you understand?  Better than clarification requests I’m sorry. I didn’t understand. What was that?
    • 21. Weakness  Problem in determining the extent to which such exchanges result in learning or serve only as negotiation for meaning with no consequent learning  Does acknowledgement of understanding truly reflects understanding at all? NS: NNS: NS: NNS: NS: NNS: the man…look for help Uh-huh, for help. Help, you know… “Aah! Help!” (shouts softly) Uh-huh. Yeah… He asked, ….he asked… a man… for… help. For help.
    • 22. Weakness  It was generally the case that morphosyntactic feedback was not recognized, whereas lexical and phonological feedback were more likely to be recognized  Morphosyntactic feedback is not noticed because individuals focus on meaning, not on language form  Typical in a conversational context
    • 23. Weakness  Negotiation, recast, and feedback can vary in their usefulness for acquisition  This variation is related to the developmental stage of the learner as well as to different areas of the target language system (lexis, phonology, syntax, etc.)
    • 24. Weakness  Many variables influence comprehension and acquisition  amount and type of information  extent to which learning is engaged in meaning negotiation  indirect feedback  the amount of effort that NS and NNS make to construct discourse

    ×