MPhil Linguistics & TESOL

Second Language Acquisition

Mid Term Presentation

Presented to: Ms.Shabana Ahmad
Presented by: Shabana Maqsood
 Critical Reading of Research Report

INPUT, INTERACTION, AND SECOND LANGUAGE

DEVELOPMENT
An Empirical Study of Question Formation in ESL

Alison Mackey
Georgetown University
Introduction
 This study examines the relationship between
different types of conversational interaction
and Second Language Acquisition.
 The General Topic of Research Report

The Interaction Hypothesis

 The Interaction Hypothesis states that
interaction facilitates SLA because
conversational and linguistic modifications
that occur in discourse provide learners with
effective comprehensible linguistic input.
Second language acquisition theories on
the role of interaction

 The focus of language acquisition

theories have traditionally been on
‘nurture’and ‘nature’ distinctions,
advanced by the social-interactionist
and nativist camps respectively.
Nativist Theories
 Nativists perceive language ability as an
innate capacity to generate syntactically
correct sentences.
 Krashen assumes that natural internal
mechanisms operate upon comprehensible
input which leads to language competence.
The social-interactionist theories
 Social-interactionists see language as a rule-governed
cultural activity learned in interaction with others.
 interactionists believe environmental factors are more
dominant in language acquisition.
 According to Vygotsky, social interaction plays an
essential role in the learning process and proposed
the zone of proximal development (ZPD), where
learners construct the new language through socially
mediated interaction (Brown, p. 287).
Continued…
 Michael Long among other interactionists, also
believes in the importance of comprehensive input.
His interaction hypothesis also stresses the
importance of comprehensible input as a major factor
in second language acquisition; however, he also
believes that interactive input is more important than
non-interactive input. In addition, Long stresses the
significance of interactional modifications which occur
in the negotiating meaning when communication
problems arise (Ellis, 1994)
Continued…
 The major distinction between interactionist
and nativist theories of SLA is that scholars
such as Krashen emphasize comprehensible
target language input which is one-way input
and, on the contrary, interactionists
acknowledge the importance of two way
communication in the target language (Ariza
and Hancock, 2003).
How does interaction contribute in SLA?

When meaning breaks down, interactional

modifications are made in the talk such as:
 repetitions

 confirmation checks

 comprehension checks

 clarification requests
 Research questions
 Does conversational interaction facilitate second
language development?
 Are the developmental outcomes related to the
nature of the conversational interaction and the
level of learner involvement ?
 Previous Empirical Studies Of
Interaction in SLA

 Conversational interaction and SL production by Sato

(1988) .Sato conclusion was that conversation might be
selectively facilitative.
 The exploration of interaction and learner production by
Gass and Varonis(1994). The study concluded that
interaction with the opportunity for modification may
affect the later language use.
 Polio and Gass(1998) study found a positive effect for
negotiated interaction on SL production and
comprehension.
Continued…
 Loschky (1994).The study showed that negotiated
interaction had positive effect on the comprehension
of the vocabulary but no effect on the retention or
acquisition of the vocabulary items or the acquisition
of grammatical structures
 Continued….
 Ellis et al. (1994), found that interactional
modified input resulted in both
(a) better comprehension and

(b) more new words being acquired than was the

case with pre-modified input.

 Swain and Lapkin (1998) explored a sociocultural

perspective on interaction and SL development

processes
 SLA. Mackey and Philp (1998)The study
explored the effects of recast on learner’s
short term interlanguage development.
 Significance of the present
study

 The studies reviewed above demonstrate

that, although some aspects of the
interaction hypothesis have been explored, to
date the central claim made by the
hypothesis - that taking part in interaction
can facilitate second language development -
has not been fully tested empirically. The
current study aims to test that claim.
 Prediction
 The central prediction that interaction would lead to
development, and an associated prediction that the
extent of the development would be related to the
nature of the interaction and the role of the learner,
such that learners who actively participated in
interaction would receive the most benefit and
learners who did not actively participate, namely
those who observed interaction without taking part in
it, or who took part in scripted interaction, would
receive less benefit.
 Participants
 Participants in this study were 34 adult ESL learners private
English language school in Sydney ,Australia.
 All participants were beginner and lower-intermediate
intensive English language classes, from various LI
background.
 six native speakers of English were also included .
Research Methodology

 Tasks were designed for tests and treatment that

targeted question forms and also promoted the
interactional modifications that are claimed to be
important in second language learning( Long, 1996).
These tasks were empirically tested in a series of
studies (Mackey 1994a, 1994b) to ensure that they
did target the form.
Procedure
 In the test sessions, participants carried out
"spot the difference" tasks
 In the treatment sessions, participants performed

three tasks.
 a picture-drawing task,

 a story-completion task, and

 a story-sequencing task.

A variety of tasks was used to allow a range of

contexts to occur for eliciting the targeted forms.
 Research Design
 Interactors: Interactionally Modified Input through
Tasks.
 Interactor Unreadies: Interactionally Modified Input
through Tasks.
 Observers: Watch Interactionally Modified Input
 Scripteds: Premodified (Scripted) Input through Tasks.
 Control:The control group received no treatment so that
any gains or changes in performance could be compared
to any gains or changes in other groups
RESULTS
Continued….
Conclusion
This study provides direct empirical
support for the claims of the interaction
hypothesis (Long, 1996): Interactional
modifications led to SL development and
more active involvement in negotiated
interaction led to greater development.
Reflection
There is a strong link between interaction and learning
with a focus on the four constructs of Interactional
Hypothesis: Input, Interaction, feedback and output.
 It helps to promote communication.

 -It facilitates learning as it helps noticing a ‘gap’

between received input and the learner’s output
 It enables learners to receive feedback through direct

and indirect evidence

 It helps acquisition at least where vocabulary is

concerned.
 Clarification requests facilitate learners to produce

output modifications