Understanding Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed)
Page 22
4 This is an example of sociopragmatic transfer. This kind of transfer arises ‘when the social perceptions underlying learners’ interpretation and performance of linguistic action are influenced by their assessment of subjectively equivalent L1 contexts’ (Kasper 1992: 209).
7
Input and interaction: the cognitive-interactionist perspective
Introduction
This chapter examines what Gass and Mackey (2007) called the interaction approach. Broadly defined, this concerns what happens ‘when learners encounter input, are involved in interaction, receive feedback and produce output’ (p. 176). In part, then, it is concerned with the nature of the external processes involved when learners engage in communication. However, the interaction approach also draws on various cognitive constructs—such as noticing and attention—to explain how these external processes connect with internal processes to result in acquisition. In this way, the approach provides a cognitive-interactionist account of L2 acquisition.
I will begin by focusing on the ‘interactionist’ aspects of the approach by defining the key constructs involved. This is followed by an introduction to two key cognitive processes that are activated through interaction—focus on form and incidental acquisition. The rest of the chapter reviews research that has investigated the interaction approach, introducing important theoretical constructs as the review progresses.
Key interactionist constructs
The constructs to be considered are shown schematically in Figure 7.1. Each construct is discussed and illustrated below.
Figure 7.1 Some key constructs
Non-interactive input
Non-interactive input consists of oral or written samples of the target language that learners are exposed to, but do not respond to verbally. It can be unmodified or pre-modified. Example (1)—taken from Long and Ross (1993)—illustrates non-interactive written input. It consists of three texts, (a), (b) and (c.) Text (a) is ‘baseline input’: that is, it is unmodified, typical of the kind of input that occurs in communication between competent speakers of a language. It is characterized by lengthy sentences and dense propositional content. Texts (b) and (c) illustrate two ways of pre-modifying the input. In (b), the input is simplified by using short sentences and thinning-out the propositional content. In (c), modification takes the form of elaboration aimed at making the task of comprehending the input easier by structuring the propositional content more clearly. Elaborated input of this kind, however, is not necessarily more linguistically simple. Both (b) and (c) are examples of pre-modified input.
Example (1)
(a) Catfish have gills for use under water and lungs for use on land, where they can breathe for twelve hours or more. The hot daytime sun would dry them out, but they can slip out of their ponds at night and still stay cool while they hunt for food.
(b) Catfish have both gills and lungs. The gills are used for breathing under water. The lungs are for use on land. The fish can breathe on land for twelve hours or more. At night these fish can slip out of ponds. They move at night so they can stay cool. The hot sun would dry them out. They hunt at night too.
(c) Catfish have two systems for breathing: gills, like other fish, for use under water; and lungs, like people, for use on land, where they can breathe for twelve hours or more. Catfish would dry out and die from the heat of the sun, so they stay in water during the daytime. At night, on the other hand, they can slip out of their ponds and stay cool while they hunt for food.
(Long and Ross 1993: 51–2)
Interactive input
Interactive input arises from the social interactions that a learner participates in with other people—either other learners or native speakers. Again, this input can be oral or written depending on whether the interaction occurs face to face or online in a chat room.
Interactive input is often simplified through the process of interaction; that is, when learners signal their failure to comprehend—for example, by requesting clarification—the input may be modified to accommodate them. Example (2) illustrates interactionally modified input. A native speaker (NS) is talking with a non-native speaker (NNS) (i.e. a learner) while performing an information-gap task involving describing the location of some objects. Initially, the NNS fails to understand ‘mushroom’ in the NS’s instruction (turn 1) and requests clarification (turn 2). The NS responds by simplifying her initial instruction (turn 3), which enables the NNS to identify the source of her comprehension problem and request a definition of ‘mushroom’ (turn 4). The NS provides this (turn 5), and the NNS then seeks confirmation she has understood by offering a synonym (turn 6). The NS confirms and then provides further details (turn 7). This example illustrates how input that is initially not comprehensible to a learner is modified through interaction so that it becomes comprehensible.
Example (2)
1 NS Place the mushroom with the four yellow dots underneath the two mushrooms that are already there.
2 NNS Which one?
3 NS OK? Place the mushroom.
4 NNS What’s a mushroom?
5 NS It’s another kind of plant.
6 NNS A fungus.
7 NS Yeah a fungus. It’s a little brown thing … a little brown thing?
(Pica 1992: 211)
Output
In interaction, learners have the opportunity to produce in the L2 (i.e. by speaking or writing). In other words, interaction affords not just input, but also output opportunities. Output is unmodified if the learner makes no attempt to modify an initial utterance. Modified output occurs when the learner attempts to reformulate an initial utterance. This can be self-initiated (i.e. the learner elects to try to modify the utterance without any external prompting). However, it often occurs following some kind of feedback from another speaker. If something the learner has said has not been understood and this is signalled to learner, this may result in the learner attempting to express the meaning more clearly and, perhaps, more linguistically accurately. Example (3) illustrates this. The NNS begins by seeking confirmation that she has identified the right objects (turn 1) and in the process commits an agreement error (‘there is three … ’). The NS responds with a clarification request (turn 2). This results in a repetition with the same error, but the learner then immediately self-corrects (‘there are three … ’). Self-correction is a form of modified output. It should be noted, however, that modified output does not always result in target-like language.
Example (3)
1 NNS there is three buildings, right?
2 NS Pardon?
3 NNS there is three … there are three
4 NS Right right I’ve described one so far.
(Pica 1992: 217)
Focus on form and incidental learning
Both input and output can be meaning centred or form centred. Input is meaning centred when the learners’ primary concern is to comprehend as, for example, in pleasure reading. Output is meaning centred if the goal is simply to communicate some message, as in normal conversation. Input is form centred when the learners’ primary attention is directed at studying and learning the linguistic forms exemplified in the input. Output is form centred when the learner is primarily concerned with conforming to target language norms.
Related to this distinction are two different types of language learning: incidental learning—i.e. the picking up of new linguistic features while attention is focused on understanding the input—and intentional learning—i.e. the deliberate attempt to learn new linguistic forms. Input and output, however, can be both meaning- and form-centred when learners engage primarily in trying to understand, but also pay periodic attention to linguistic form when the need arises. Long (1991) coined the term focus-on-form to refer to the unplanned attention to form that can occur when learners are engaged in processing input and output for meaning.
The focus of this chapter is the incidental learning that takes place when meaning-centred input/interaction induces learners to focus on form. It is further considered in Chapte
r 11 when the role of implicit instruction in L2 acquisition is examined.
Early research on input and interaction
Early research on input and interaction was descriptive in nature. That is, it focused on the special properties of input directed at L2 learners and the ways in which conversations with learners are structured.
Simplified registers
We will briefly consider two types of simplified registers: foreigner talk and teacher talk. These share a number of features but also differ in some ways.
Foreigner talk
In general, when NSs talk with learners they simplify their language although, as Gass (1997) showed, this does not always happen. NSs vary in their ability to engage in foreigner talk depending on their communicative skills and their prior experience of communicating with NNSs.
Sometimes simplification involves ungrammatical modifications. Ferguson (1975) suggested that ungrammaticality is evident in three ways: (1) omission of grammatical functors such as copula, articles, conjunctions, subject pronouns, and inflectional morphology; (2) expansion, as when ‘you’ is inserted before an imperative verb—for example, ‘You give me money.’; (3) replacement/rearrangement, as when post-verbal negation is replaced by pre-verbal negation in English—for example, ‘No want play’. Interestingly, the ungrammatical modifications evident in foreigner talk are very similar to the kinds of ungrammatical speech found in learner language (see Chapter 4).
In many situations, however, ungrammatical foreigner talk does not occur. Arthur, Weiner, Culver, Young, and Thomas (1980) recorded 60 telephone conversations between adult NNSs of English and NS airline ticket agents and reported no instance of ungrammatical input modifications. An obvious way in which input can be simplified grammatically is by adjusting speech rate and pausing more. Simplification can also be achieved by avoiding high-frequency words—for example, using ‘flower’ rather than ‘tulip’—and by avoiding complex nominal phrases and subordinate constructions.
Grammatical foreigner talk does not always involve simplification. It can also entail regularization (i.e. the selection of forms that are in some way ‘basic’ or ‘explicit’). Examples include the preference for full forms over contracted forms and the movement of topics to the front of sentences—for example, ‘John, I like him.’ Also, as we have already seen in example (1), input can be adjusted by making it more elaborate, for example, by lengthening sentences in an attempt to make the meaning clear or paraphrasing a low-frequency word—for example, saying ‘hold on tightly’ in place of ‘cling’.
Why do native speakers engage in foreigner talk? Ungrammatical modifications can occur in ‘talking down’ situations—for example, when a NS in authority addresses foreign workers. But the main motivation is to promote communication. The fact that many of the formal characteristics of foreigner talk are very similar to those found in other simplified registers—such as child-directed speech and pidgins—suggests that universal processes of simplification are at work. Knowledge of how to modify the way we talk is part of our communicative competence.
Teacher talk
Teacher talk shares many of the characteristics of grammatical foreigner talk. However, ungrammatical modifications are rare. One of the interesting research findings is that input modifications vary depending on the proficiency of the students. For example, Henzl’s (1979) study of teacher talk in three different languages (Czech, English, and German) showed that the teachers adjusted their speech rate in accordance with the listeners’ proficiency. This is an important finding as it shows that teacher talk is dynamically tailored to learners’ needs, affording them increasingly richer input as they develop.
Simplified registers and L2 acquisition
These studies of simplified registers did not investigate whether they assisted L2 acquisition. However, there are reasons for believing that they might do so. Krashen (1981) argued that they provide learners with comprehensible input, which he considered the primary source of data for acquisition. Chaudron (1983) claimed that modifications involving elaboration can help to make the message more ‘cognitively simple’. Hatch (1983) suggested that regularization makes the meanings of utterances more transparent and enables learners to identify the constituent boundaries in utterances. One thing is clear: foreigner and teacher talk do not aim to teach the target language; if they help, they do so implicitly as the result of trying to communicate.
Discourse management and repair
Just as input is modified, so too is the structure of conversations involving L2 learners. The interactional modifications that characterize these conversations are of two kinds—those relating to managing communication so as to avoid problems, and those that help to solve problems when they arise.
Discourse management
When NSs converse with NNSs they use a variety of strategies to ensure that communication proceeds smoothly: they treat topics simply and briefly; they ask questions; they talk about the here and now; and they use comprehension checks:
Arthur et al. (1980) compared the information airline agents included in their responses to telephone enquiries from NSs and NNSs (‘What kind of plane is a …?’). They found there was no difference in the amount of simple information given to the NS and NNS callers, but there were significant differences in the amount of complex information, with the NNSs receiving far less.
Asking questions serves as a way for native speakers to establish and control topics. Long (1991) suggested that questions compel answers, signal to the NNS that a turn is approaching, and lighten the learner’s conversation burden because they encode part (and sometimes all) of the propositional content required to respond. Long also found differences in the types of questions used. In conversations with the learners, the NSs made greater use of ‘yes’/’no’- and ‘or’-type questions. However, child NSs are less inclined to establish and develop topics through questioning with child L2 learners (Peck 1978).
A here-and-now orientation allows learners to make use of the immediate context to interpret the meaning of utterances. It also leads to simpler verb forms. Long (1981) reported significantly more present-tense verbs in NS speech addressed to NNSs than in speech addressed to other NSs.
Comprehension checks—for example, ‘You understand?’, ‘Okay?’—have been found to occur more frequently in NS–NNS discourse than in NS–NS discourse (Long 1981). Teacher talk, in particular, seems to be rich in comprehension checks.
Discourse repair
Two different kinds of problems can be identified—(1) communication problems, and (2) linguistic problems. In the case of the former, the repair involves the negotiation of meaning. Example (2) illustrated this. The NNS failed to understand what the NS had said and this led to an attempt to resolve the communication impasse. When the problem is purely linguistic, negotiation of form may take place. In Example (4), the student mispronounces ‘patriot’. The teacher clearly understood what the learner meant, so there was no communication problem, but nevertheless negotiation ensued with the teacher’s correction.
Example (4)
1 S Yeah, I’m a patriost.
2 T A patriot.
3 S Yeah.
(Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen 2001)
In natural conversation, negotiation of meaning is more likely to occur than negotiation of form as NSs do not typically bother to negotiate unless a communication problem occurs. In classroom interaction, however, negotiation of form is common. Negotiation of both meaning and form can also occur in conversations between learners.
Negotiation is accomplished by means of interactional strategies (see Table 7.1). These strategies are of two basic kinds. Output prompting strategies—for example, requests for clarification and elicitation—push earners to modify their problematic utterances. Input-providing strategies—for example, recasts and explicit correction—help to solve problems by supplying learners with the correct target language form. These strategies also differ in terms of how implicit—i.e. they are not overtly correctiv
e—or explicit—i.e. they are more clearly corrective—they are. Context is important here, but, in general, clarification requests and recasts are implicit and elicitation and metalinguistic comments are explicit. Later, we will see that strong claims have been made regarding the facilitative role that these negotiation strategies play in acquisition.
Negotiation strategy Description Example Type
Request for clarification an utterance that elicits clarification of the preceding utterance NNS: When I get to Paris, I’m going to sleep for one whole day.
NNS: What? (Varonis and Gass 1985)
implicit;
output-prompting
Confirmation check an utterance immediately following the previous speaker’s utterance intended to confirm that the utterance was understood NNS: Mexican food have a lot of ulcers. NS: Mexicans have a lot of ulcers?
(Young and Doughty 1987).
implicit;
input-providing
Recast an utterance that rephrases the learner’s utterance by changing one or more components (subject, verb, object) while still referring to its central meaning (Long 1996) NNS: En las mesa hay una taza rojo.