The document discusses the role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. It covers 5 key ingredients: attitude, input, interaction, output, and noticing. Input alone may not be enough for acquisition and learners need opportunities for output and interaction. Noticing gaps in their language is important for learning. The environment can provide positive evidence, negative evidence, and opportunities for negotiation of meaning to aid acquisition, but individual and social factors also influence the learning process.

1. The Role of the Linguistic
Environment in SLA
(Long, 1996; Swain, 2005, Ortega, 2009)

2. Y'all remember 'Wes'
• Awareness of the linguistic environment is key to acquisition.
"I’m never learning, I only just listen then, then
talk.” (Schmidt, p. 168)
• Grammar acquisition cannot happen unless one makes a
conscious effort.
• Schmidt’s research with Wes enabled him to conclude that
noticing is the fifth ingredient for successful SLA along with
attitude, input, interaction, and output.

3. The 5 Ingredients
Attitude
• Schumann’s acculturation
model
• In light of Wes’ study, Schumann’s modified this
model to include noticing.
Input
• Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis –
grammar learning will naturally occur when
learners are exposed to content that is
personally relevant and understandable.
• Evidence of the gap between comprehension
and acquisition calls for more research on this
in the future.

4. The 5 Ingredients
Interaction
• The best comprehensible input comes in the form
of interaction (Long, 1996).
o Interlocutors can negotiate for meaning,
modifying their interaction for comprehension.
 clarification requests
 confirmation checks
 comprehension checks
o Long believes interactionally modified input
tailor-made for the learner is the most effective.
o Studies have shown that interaction leads to
better comprehension and incorporation of
input from interlocutors (Loschky, 1994, Gass,
1994)

5. The 5 Ingredients
Output
• Comprehensible Output Hypothesis - ‘producing the target
language may be the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention
to the means of expression’ (Swain, 1985)
o Study of English L1 children French L2 immersion school
 Like Wes, oral discourse competence was strong but
grammatical & sociolinguistic competence was weak due to
lack of chances to speak and write in L2
• Learning may be increased by handling complex language beyond
current ability
o Pushed Output Hypothesis - "O+1"

6. The 5 Ingredients
Noticing
• Learners need to notice that there
is something new in the linguistic environment.
• Learning directly relates to noticing: the more learners
notice, the more they learn (Schmidt, 2001)
o Internally driven – learners may notice the gap between
what they are able to express and what they want to express in
their L2.
o Externally driven – learners may notice the gap between
their language and that of their interlocutors, or through explicit
instruction from a teacher.

7. The output Hypothesis: Theory and
Research
Swain (2005)
• Output as product or Output as process
• The Output hypothesis claims that the act
of producing language (speaking or
writing) constitutes, under certain
circumstances, part of the process of
second language learning.

8. The Output Hypothesis: Theory and
Research
Swain (2005)
• Context in which the Output Hypothesis was
formulated:
1. Information-processing theory (input-output)
• i + 1; comprehensible input .(Krashen, 1982, 1985)
• Certain discourse moves such as clarification and
comprehension checks served to make input more
comprehensible. (Long, 1983, 1985)
• We acquire language in only one way: when we
understand messages in that language, when we
receive comprehensible input. (Krashen, 1984)
2. French immersion programs in Canada
• Pushed output; comprehensible output; negotiating
meaning.

9. The output Hypothesis: Theory and
Research
Swain (2005)
Three Functions of Output
1. The Noticing/Triggering Function
• Learners may notice that they do not know how
to say (or write) precisely the meaning they wish
to convey.
• Output triggered deeper and more elaborate
processing of the form, which led learners to
establish a more durable memory trace. (Izumi,
2002, p.570)

10. The output Hypothesis: Theory and
Research
Swain (2005)
Three Functions of Output
2. The Hypothesis Testing function
• Output may sometimes be, from the learner’s
perspective, a “trial run” reflecting their
hypothesis of how to say (or write) their intent.
• Students were more likely to modify their output,
and do so successfully, when they were pushed
to do so. (Loewen, 2002)

11. The output Hypothesis: Theory and
Research
Swain (2005)
Three Functions of Output
3. The Metalinguistic (Reflective) Function
• Using language to reflect on language produced
by others or the self. Mediates second language
learning.
• An individual’s physical and cognitive behavior is
initially regulated by others.
• Solo mental function
Students work
together
Mediate problemdialogue
Collaborative solution

12. Output modification
Output modification
• Brenden (1997) study on Dutch L2 speakers showed that
learners modified their output in response to negotiation from their
interlocutors, and that negotiation facilitates more productive
output
• Shehadeh (1999) found that output modification occurs more
frequently in self-initiated repair than other-initiated repair.
• Izumi (2003) argues that learners can modify their output only
in meaningful, not mechanical language use.
• Much more research still needs to be done on the effects of
output on acquisition.

13. Possible Roles for the
Environment
• Positive evidence
• Negative evidence
• Direct or Indirect
• Explicit or Implicit

14. Negotiation for Meaning
• The contribution of the learning environment
depends on the learner paying attention and their
ability to comprehend available input
• How do NSs try to make their meaning clear?

15. Foreigner Talk and Positive
Evidence
• How do we make input
comprehensible?
• What is FT vs.
“Foreigner register”?
• Mostly grammatical,
slower and clearer
• Usually simpler in the
written form and
sometimes more
elaborate orally

16. Devices in the Negotiation
Process
• Repetitions
• Confirmations
• Reformulations
• Comprehension checks
• Confirmation checks
• Clarification

17. Does FT Work?
• “input must be comprehensible for
acquisition to occur, and there is some
evidence that global linguistic and
conversational adjustments to NNSs
improve comprehensibility”

18. Is Comprehensible Input
Enough?
Krashen
Vs. Schmidt
Focus on form?

19. Input and Cognitive Processing
• Attention, awareness and noticing
• “Input enhancement”
• Focus on form and meaning in context

20. Negative Evidence in L1
Acquisition
• Does it exist?
• Is it in usable form?
• Is it used?
• Is it necessary?
• The French Example

21. Negative Evidence in L2 Acquisition I.
-Scope of research
-Is negative feedback
effective?
-What does the research
indicate?
-How is it provided?

22. Negative Evidence in L2 Acquisition II.
Alternative Taxonomy System?
-Different taxonomy system?
-explicitness
(Ellis and Sheen, 2006)
-demand
(Lyster, 2004)
-informativeness

23. Negative Evidence in L2 Acquisition III.
Effectiveness Revisited
-Importance of context
-Communicative-based lessons
vs. content-based lessons
-Discourse and pedagogical
context

24. The Limits of the Linguistic Environment
• Conversational tasks may exhibit lower levels of negotiation
than information gap tasks, but encourage more personal
engagement and risk-taking.
• Learners may feign understanding to save face and avoid
lengthy negotiations
• Attitudinal and affective factors can hinder negotiation
• Communication style varies with individuals
• Native-speaker prejudice towards L2 learners can treat all
utterances as problematic
• L2 learners may feel that native speakers have a
responsibility to understand their interlanguage

25. Pedagogical Implications
• Teachers should be aware not simply of what’s out there in
the linguistic environment, but how learners process that
data and live and experience that environment.