Michael Long developed the Interaction Hypothesis in 1983, which posited that comprehensible input alone is not sufficient for second language acquisition. The hypothesis emphasizes that meaningful interaction and negotiation of meaning between interlocutors is essential. When learners do not understand, interaction provides opportunities to modify input through techniques like clarification requests and confirmation checks. This negotiated interaction allows learners to notice gaps and facilitates acquisition by connecting input, internal processes, and output. Long later incorporated aspects of Merrill Swain's Output Hypothesis by acknowledging the role of output in development.

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