Input and Interaction


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Input and Interaction

  1. 1. Input and Interaction (SLA) Krashen’s Input hypothesis Long’s Interaction hypothesis
  2. 2. Two problems with Behaviourism The poverty of the stimulus argument >>>>> Chomsky and SLA Rewards have a tendency to lose their effect over time >>>>> Social Psychology
  3. 3. What is Grammar? Descriptive grammar: A grammar that accounts for the observable regularities in a language Pedagogic grammar: A grammar that makes it ‘easier’ to teach or learn a language A learner’s internal grammar: ‘Something’ in a learner’s brain (and body?) that allows the learner to use language correctly in meaningful contexts
  4. 4. The Language Faculty (LAD) Chomsky and L1 Acquisition creative; rule-governed and systematic (interlanguage); developmental sequences; resistance to correction. Krashen and L2 Acquisition acquisition/learning hypothesis; INPUT HYPOTHESIS; affective filter hypothesis; monitor hypothesis; natural order hypothesis.
  5. 5. Interlanguage
  6. 6. Acquisition / Learning hypothesis; Learning grammar is a conscious process. The learner is consciously attending to the rules/regularities of the language. This does NOT lead to changes in a learner’s internal grammar. Acquiring grammar is a subconscious process. The learner is only aware of using the language for communication. This DOES lead to changes in the internal grammar of the learner. BACK
  7. 7. Comprehensible Input (Teacher does a warm-up activity with 12 year old students) T = teacher; S1, S2 = different students T S1 S2 T S1 How are you doing this morning? I’m mad! Why? Oh boy. Yeah, why? 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). The affective filter hypothesis argues that a learner will not acquire language when she or he is anxious for any reason.
  8. 8. Monitor hypothesis The monitor hypothesis accepts that conscious ‘knowledge of’ grammar, the result of learning (see above), can play a role in second language use and acquisition. It works as follows: if there is sufficient time to do so, a learner may ‘monitor’ their own second language use (generated by the internal grammar) with the help of her or his conscious knowledge of grammar. This may be a good reason for a teacher to provide plenty of ‘student thinking time’ in class. Yes, this means that a learner may have conscious knowledge of a grammar rule which she has not yet acquired, and therefore not yet part of her internal grammar. In a way, then, the learner’s monitor may create self-generated input that may result in further acquisition. If, however, there is not sufficient time for the monitor to operate, then the second language speaker is entirely dependent on her internal grammar.
  9. 9. Interlanguage
  10. 10. Natural Order hypothesis The following is from Ellis (1997, pp. 9-10) reporting on a study of two young learners’ (aged 10 and 11) development of English requests: When I analysed J’s and R’s requests, I found clear evidence of development taking place. Moreover, the two learners appeared to develop in much the same way. Initially, their requests were verbless. For example, when J needed a cut out of a big circle in a mathematics lesson he said: Big circle. while, in a different lesson, R just pointed at a piece of card to let the teacher know that he wanted him to put a staple in it, saying: Sir. A little later, both learners began to use imperative verbs in their requests: Give me. Give me a paper.
  11. 11. Some time after this, they learned to use ‘Can I have ____?’: Can I have one yellow book, please? The next stage of their development of requests was marked by a general extension of the linguistic devices they used. For example, R made use of ‘want’ statements: Miss, I want. (R wanted the teacher to give him the stapler.) J used ‘got’: You got a rubber? Occasionally, both learners used hints instead of direct requests. For example, when J wanted the teacher to give him a different coloured piece of paper he said: This paper is not very good to colour blue. Finally, the learners began to use ‘can’ with a range of different verbs (i.e. not just with ‘have’): Can you pass me my pencil?
  12. 12. Issues with Krashen’s ‘thinking’ Redundancy in Language Input (today) Social Processes Negotiation of Meaning (today) Collaborative Dialogue (session on sociocultural theory) Conscious Processes Noticing and Information Processing (next session) Output Hypothesis (next session) Lexical Processing Formulaic language (next session) FORWARD
  13. 13. Redundancy in Input (1) What do the following examples suggest about information in input? Gt a gd jb wth mr py Cntdwn t nw yr Hw t b yr wn trvl gnt
  14. 14. Redundancy in Input(2) Order the following examples in terms of how likely you think the underlined grammatical feature will be noticed: He wants to play. _______ Tom’s bike. _______ He’s very angry. _______ David gave up playing the piano. _______ John kicked the football. _______
  15. 15. Redundancy in Input (3) VanPatten (1996) argues that redundancy is a central problem for learners, especially in their processing of input. VanPatten's (1996, p. 14) input processing principles: o Learners process input for meaning before they process it for form. o Learners process content words in the input before anything else. o Learners process lexical items before grammatical items (e.g. morphological markings). o Learners prefer processing "more meaningful morphology before "less" or "non-meaningful" morphology. BACK
  16. 16. Negotiation of Meaning If comprehensible input facilitates language acquisition, and if negotiation of meaning makes input more comprehensible, then negotiation of meaning facilitates language acquisition (Long, 1983). Negotiation commonly includes:  Clarification requests  Confirmation requests  Comprehension checks  Repetitions
  17. 17. Negotiation of Meaning Varonis, E.M. and Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/Non-native Conversations: A Model for Negotiation of Meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1): 71-90. Trigger – Indicator – Response – Pushdown ends BACK
  18. 18. Generalizations from SLA Research (Based on Lightbown 1985, 2000) 1. Adults and adolescents can ‘acquire’ a second language; 2. The learner creates a systematic interlanguage which is often characterized by the same systematic errors as the child learning the same language as a first language, as well as others which appear to be based on the learner’s own native language; 3. There are predictable sequences in L2 acquisition such that certain structures have to be acquired before others can be integrated; 4. Practice does not make perfect; 5. Knowing a language rule does not mean one will be able to use it in communicative interaction;
  19. 19. 6. Isolated explicit error correction is usually ineffective in changing language behaviour; 7. For most adult learners, acquisition stops –‘fossilizes’ – before the learner has achieved native-like mastery of the target language; 8. One cannot achieve native-like (or near native-like) command of a second language on one hour a day; 9. The learner’s task is enormous because language is enormously complex; 10.A learner’s ability to understand language in a meaningful context exceeds his/her ability to comprehend decontextualized language and to produce language of comparable complexity and accuracy.
  20. 20. References Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford university Press. Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Lightbown, P. & N. Spada (1999). How languages are learned (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lightbown, P. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21/4: 431-462.