Input and Interaction in SLL

Autonomous individual

social and linguistic environment

Language learning in social terms

Language structure

Language use in Inter-language development

Input received

1st Challenge:

output produced

Michael Long:

Interaction is not one dimensional source of TL input (page # 160)

Engaged with interlocutor in negotiation

qualitatively changed

Recycled, paraphrased &usefulness

2nd Challenge:

Swain:

Immersion and Output hypothesis

Immersion is a term used to denote a type of bilingual education program that

was developed in Canada in the 1970s (Lambert and Tucker 1972) where children
were educated within the medium of a second language and therefore immersed
in this L2 with a view to becoming a competent user of that language with no cost
to their academic achievement.
(The) Output hypothesis is attributed to the work of Merryll Swain. It is part of
the general interaction research tradition, which also includes modified input
other speaker adjusts his or her speech due to perceived difficulties in learner comprehension)

(the

and

negotiation of meaning both of which Swain claimed were necessary but not
sufficient for acquisition. Swains basic premise is that forcing learners to speak
in the L2 (i.e., putting them in a situation where they have to construct an
utterance which they know may be wrong) furthers acquisition, and is in direct
contrast to Krashens (see comprehensible input) claim that output is the result
of acquisition not its cause. Swains forced output furthers acquisition because:

1. It encourages noticing learners may notice the gap between what they want
to say and what they believe they know
(Consciousness raising role)
2. It encourages hypothesis testing which in turn may result in either a
communication breakdown forcing the learner to reformulate the utterance, or
simply in useful feedback from a native speaker
(Corrects himself of by native speaker)
3. It operates as a meta-linguistic function encouraging learners to think about
linguistic information. This contributes to consolidating knowledge.
(Reflective role)

Whereas modified input and negotiation of meaning may only result in learners
focusing on the messages being exchanged in interaction, all these three
functions of output serve to focus the learner on form as well as meaning.

Comprehension abilities were close to native speaker level

Productive ability lagged behind (Reading & Listening were focused: INPUT)
Only 2nd Language production effective development of 2nd Language

6.2: Input & Interaction in 1st Language Acquisition

Baby talk, Motherese, Child Directed Speech, Caretaker speech, Foreigner talk

1. Recasts: Utterances in which the caretaker produces an expanded and

grammatically

correct

version

of

prior

child

utterance

(explicit

formal

corrections are unusual)

CHILD:

Fix Lily

MOTHER:

Oh.Lily will fix it

Negative evidence is an indication of what is not grammatically possible in a childs

developing L1. Despite the fact that there are potentially numerous possibilities for how language might
be structured, children seem to readily learn the linguistic features of their native
language without ever being formally taught or without any indication of what is
and is not allowed in the language. The notion here is that when/if children are
ever corrected on their linguistic utterances it is mostly in consideration of the
truth value of the utterance, without reference to the grammatical accuracy of the
utterance. If for example a child were to say I putted the book on the table, the adult caregiver
would be more likely to comment on whether that event actually occurred as opposed to pointing out to
the child that putted is not correct in English.

Chomsky (1965) argued, therefore that such negative evidence either is non-occurring in the
environment or occurs so infrequently and so inconsistently as to be useless to the child
in learning language.
If negative evidence is not available to children while learning their L1, the question posed by Chomsky
is how do they actually learn to discriminate between what is grammatically possible from what is
grammatically impossible in their language? Chomskys answer to this question is that children acquire
language through universal grammar.

3. Usefulness of Child Directed speech as input data (p #163)

4. Cross-cultural studies ..CDSIs not universal
South-eastern USA (children not addressed directly by adults)
BIRD TALK

Lieven
Unanalyzed and rote-learned segments, picked up in routinised situations
Contextualized talk routines