FINAL PROJECT

INPUT, INTERACTION, AND OUTPUT IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Lecturer : Dr. Lalu Muhaimi, M.pd.

By :
Name : Septikayanti
NIM : E1D020194
Class : 6-TP2

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF TACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION MATARAM
UNIVERSITY
2023
 CHAPTER I

1.1 INTRODUCTION

In the twentieth century, the best-known debate on this topic in terms of first language
learning involves the behaviorist psychologist B. F. Skinner and the linguist Noam Chomsky.
Skinner sought to explain that language could and was taught to early children through the
same mechanisms that he felt accounted for other forms of learning(Lewis, 2016).

People from various parts of the world have diverse cultural origins and speak different
languages. Language and culture appear to be two independent disciplines on the surface, yet
they are inextricably linked and mutually impact one other. According to Gleason (1961),
cited in (Kuo & Lai, 2006) languages are not only the products of civilizations, but also the
emblems of cultures. Language development typically influences its accompanying culture,
and cultural patterns of cognition and tradition are usually clearly codified in language.

Cultural stereotypes have an impact on how individuals think, speak, behave, and interact
with one another. According to Samovar, Porter, and Jain (1981), culture and communication
are inextricably linked because culture not only determines who talks to whom, about what,
and how the communication proceeds, but it also influences how people encode messages,
the meanings they assign to messages, and the conditions and circumstances under which
various messages may or may not be sent, noticed, or interpreted. In a nutshell, culture serves
as the framework for communication.

We probably began learning at least one language - what linguists called (L1).Perhaps
without thinking much about it and with very little conscious effort or awareness. Since then,
we may have learned another language (L2) potentially naturally as a result of hearing the
language used around you, but more likely with the same intentional effort required to gain
other fields of knowledge in the process of becoming a "educated" human(Saville-Troike,
2016).

The process of second language (L2) learning is influenced by a variety of complicated and
multidimensional elements (Dörnyei and Skehan 2003). Language aptitude (LA) is
frequently seen as a collection of qualities critical for L2 learning (Skehan2015) cited in
(Huang et al., 2022).

It is usually assumed that learning a second language entails learning the grammatical rules
of the second language (typically by memorization), as well as vocabulary items and precise
pronunciation standards. Using such principles in conversation is consequently interpreted as
a natural extension of grammar acquisition. This viewpoint implicitly assumes that language
use does not differ from first language situations to different second language situations,
because all that is required to successfully converse in a second language is to plug in the
correct forms to say the same thing as one does in one's native language(Lewis, 2016).

1
 This paper is a study in second language acquisition (SLA), with a theoretical and case
study focus on the role of input, interaction, and output in the development of oral fluency in
the EFL environment.

CHAPTER II

2.2 THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

2.2.1 Interaction, Input, and Output

In second language (L2) learning, the involvement of three closely related components,
namely input, interaction, and output, has steadily been recognized. It is now commonly
acknowledged that input is necessary for language acquisition. In addition to input, it is well
acknowledged that interaction is critical in the process of learning L2. One pedagogical objective
in learning L2 is output--specifically, automatic output. As a result, input, interaction, and output
are three critical composing factors in L2 acquisition. However, there has been a long-running
disagreement concerning their role.

2.2.2 Input
The input in language learning refers to the linguistic data that the learner is exposed to. It is
widely accepted that for second language acquisition to occur, two criteria must exist: L2 input
available to the learners and a set of internal mechanisms that account for how L2 data are
processed (Ellis, 1985). There are three broad perspectives on input: behaviorist, mentalist, and
interactionist, each with a distinct focus in understanding SLA. Language learning, according to
a behaviorist perspective, is governed by the stimuli learners are exposed to and the
reinforcement they get. . Mentalist views, on the other hand, highlight the relevance of the
learner's "black box." They argue that learners' brains are uniquely adapted to acquire language
and that all that is required is a small amount of information to activate acquisition (Ellis,
1997)cited in (Zhang, 2009).

Krashen was a significant individual whose input hypothesis previously had a strong impact
on SLA. According to his input hypothesis, SLA occurs when the learner understands input
containing grammatical forms that are at 'i+1' (that is, a bit more advanced than the learner's
current stage of interlanguage). He thinks that the appropriate level of when interlocutors
succeed in making themselves known through conversation, input occurs automatically
(Krashen, 1985:2). In his opinion, the Input Hypothesis is important to all aspects of acquisition,
namely that L2 acquisition is dependent on understandable input.

The teacher's primary duty in the classroom is to guarantee that learners get understandable
input by presenting them with listening and reading resources. Many subsequent studies,
however, dispute his idea by providing copious data demonstrating that, while required,
intelligible input alone is inadequate for L2 learning (Swain 1981,1991; Harley & Hart, 1997;
Harley & Swain, 1984, and so on). They contend that comprehension processing differs from
production processing. And the ability to grasp meaning transmitted by words differs from the
ability to express meaning using a language system (Swain, 1985, 1988; Sharwood Smith, 1986;
Crookes, 1991). When information is negotiated and learners generate output in interaction, they
selectively "take in" pieces of understandable input and pick the appropriate language form to

2
express themselves. This process allows learners to assimilate what they have learned and
experienced.

The contrast between input and intake made by Corder should be addressed here. He defines
input as what is available to the student, whereas intake is what the learner really internalizes
(Corder, 1967).This difference is supported by a large body of data from foreign language
learning practice. It is clearly claimed that even with the proper amount and quality of
information, L2 acquisition will not occur until it is internalized by the learners and becomes part
of their interlanguage system.

In general, input is vitally important, and there is no SLA theory or technique that does not
accept the necessity of input. According to Schwartz (1993), the input feeds or nourishes an
intrinsic system to help it thrive. However, input alone will not enhance second language
learning. It will not work properly in SLA unless it engages in interaction.

2.2.3 Interaction
Interaction refers to exchanges in which there is some sign that an utterance has not been
completely comprehended and participants must halt the flow of the discussion in order for both
parties to grasp what is being discussed (Gass & Selinker, 2001). Negotiations are common in
talks with NNSs. Long (1980) was the first to notice that talks including NNSs displayed forms
that did not occur to any major degree when just NSs were present.

Throughout talks with a nonproficient NNS participant, for example, confirmation checks,
understanding checks, and clarification inquiries are prepared. Long(1996) proposes that
"negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interaction adjustments
by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input,
internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways"
(pp.451-452). Thus, through negotiation, a learner's attentional resources may be focused to (a) a
specific gap between what he or she knows about the L2 and what the L2 truly is, or (b) a region
of the L2 about which the learner knows little or nothing (Gass & Torres, 2005).Interaction is
described as an attention-drawing mechanism, which implies that it draws attention to an
unknown component of language (Gass, 1977). Learning may occur throughout the contact.

Allwright (1984:156)regards interaction as the “fundamental fact of classroom pedagogy”

because “everything happening in the classroom happens through a process of live person-to-
person interaction”. During such kind of interaction learners make efforts to generate
comprehensible output, which turns to be sources of input for other interlocutors.
Misunderstandings occur frequently in interaction due to different factors, which can be, on
different occasions, phonological, syntactic, vocabulary, contextual or cultural, to name only a
few. To get meaning through, or seek correct interpretation, or make up for communication
breakdown, the learners resort to all sorts of strategies. The feedback the learners get from their
teachers and peers drives them to “test their hypotheses and refine their development knowledge
of the language system” (Hedge, 2000); hence functions as a facilitator of language
development.

3
2.2.4 Output

The language that a learner creates is referred to as output. Swain, the most influential
proponent of the Output Hypothesis, has maintained that intelligible output is equally important
for L2 acquisition. She stated early in 1985 that intelligible information alone is insufficient for
the L2 learning process unless learners are "obligated" to make comprehensible output.
According to her, there is no better way to test one's knowledge (linguistic or otherwise) than
to have to use that knowledge in some productive way—whether it is explaining a concept to
someone (i.e. teaching) or writing a computer program, or in the case of language learning,
getting even a simple idea across, and in doing so, he might learn something new.

He could change a prior remark or try out a new form. However, prior to her seminal
publication in 1985, output was typically understood as a means of generating what had
previously been learned, and the concept that output may be part of the learning mechanism itself
was not seriously considered (Gass & Selinker 2001).Then, in 1995, she suggested that output
might encourage learners to shift from the semantic, open-ended, nondeterministic, strategic
processing that characterizes comprehension to the comprehensive grammatical processing
required for accurate production. Thus, output appears to play a potentially important role in the
evolution of syntax and morphology.

Gass (2001) summarizes the four functions of output in L2 learning based on Swain's ideas:
testing hypotheses about the structures and meanings of L2; receiving critical feedback for the
verification of these hypotheses; forcing a shift from more meaning-based processing of the
second language to a more syntactic mode; and developing fluency and automaticity in
interlanguage production.

The final major purpose of output is to increase automaticity, which is one of the educational
goals of SLA. The steps involved in walking towards a bike, getting out the key, unlocking it,
pushing it, getting on it, and riding it, requiring little thought and less time, require little effort to
execute an automatic process (involved when the learner carries out the task without awareness
or attention).

4
 CHAPTER III

3.1 DISCUSSION

3.1.1 INPUT
Ferguson (1971), in a research aimed to investigate linguistic simplicity concerns, discovered
that in language geared at linguistically deficient persons (young children, NNSs of a language),
NSs make changes to their speech in the areas of pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary.
Speech aimed at young children was dubbed "baby talk" (today termed variously as "motherese,"
"caretaker speech," or "child-directed speech"); speech aimed towards linguistically impaired
NNSs was dubbed "foreigner talk." His purpose was to investigate the parallels between these
two types of speech. We will concentrate on examples of foreigner discourse from Ferguson's
original work (see Table 10.1).

In the Spanish example from Table 10.1, for example, the subject pronoun ve is replaced with
the direct object pronoun al, the first person singular verb veo is replaced with the infinitival
form ver, and the direct object marker al is removed. The term that conveys third person singular
in standard Arabic is used for all individuals in the Arabic example.

Table 10.2 has English instances, while Table 10.3, based from Hatch (1983), contains a brief
enumeration of features of foreigner speak speech. Foreigner talk modifications, in general, show
speech patterns that would not normally be utilized in talks with NSs. Foreigner speech is similar
to caretaker speech, which is the language spoken to small children.

5
6
 Slow speaking tempo, loud speech, extensive pauses, plain vocabulary (e.g., few idioms, high
frequency phrases), repeats and elaborations, and a lack of slang are some of the most noticeable
characteristics of outsider talk. Table 10.4 has other instances. There is a progression from talk to
NSs to nonproficient second language speakers in these examples, which originate from a single
kindergarten teacher's directions to her kids. The instructor modifies her discourse based on the
level of proficiency of her students.

3.1.2 Comprehension
The sentences differed depending on whether or not they were grammatical. One version was
grammatically correct, whereas the other was not. Because just one speaker read both versions,
the pronunciation stayed consistent. 10-5 (from Varonis and Gass, 1982, p. 135) has examples of
grammatical and ungrammatical pairs:

When asked to rate the NNSs' pronunciation on a two-point scale ("good" and "not good"),
NSs generally rated grammatical phrases as delivered by a speaker with excellent pronunciation
and ungrammatical sentences as spoken by a person with terrible pronunciation. Although
grammaticality influenced the bulk of the replies, grammaticality had minimal effect on NS
judgements for other speakers. These were the speakers who were assessed to have very good or
very awful pronunciation based on an independent judgment; the two extremes. Thus,

7
comprehending a NNS's speech is dependent on both the grammaticality and the pronunciation
of the NNS's speech.

3.1.3 Interaction
Negotiation, recasts, and feedback are all part of the interaction process. In what follows, we
will introduce the notion of meaning negotiation. This is followed by a section on output, in
which we examine bargaining further and concentrate on recasts as part of a wider idea of
feedback.

8
 The data shown below by Kasper (2004) is from a German classroom. We give two extracts
and analyses from an interactionist and a CA viewpoint to demonstrate how the variation in
orientation leads to distinct analytical focuses.

As seen by these two instances, the interactionist viewpoint does not contain the same amount
of detail or elaboration since these parts of discussion do not come into what may be considered
learning.
Because activities are not important to an interactionist framework, learning as greater success
within an activity is irrelevant (Gass, 2004).

9
10
3.1.4 Output
Mackey (2002) experimentally supports this idea with the following example and the
comments that followed this learner's difficulty with the suitable term.

Recall comments following this episode:

In this example I see I have to manage my err err expression because he does not understand
me and I cannot think of exact word right then. I am thinking thinking it is nearly in my mind,
thinking bigger and magnificate and eventually magnify. I know I see this word before but so
I am sort of talking around around this word but he is forcing me to think harder, think harder
for the correct word to give him so he can understand and so I was trying. I carry on talking
until finally I get it, and when I say it, then he understand it, me.

In this example, the response directs attention to the inaccurate form followed by a clarification
request which gives the learner an opportunity to modify his or her output.

11
 There is no feedback, merely a response, notwithstanding the mistake. Her extensive research
shows that the ability to adapt one's speech is the strongest predictor of acquisition, as
operationalized by the acquisition of more sophisticated questions.

3.1.4.1 Feedback
Interactional feedback is a valuable source of information for students.
In general, it informs individuals about the success (or, more frequently, failure) of their
utterances and provides more opportunity to improve on production or understanding. There are
several methods for delivering feedback to learners, ranging from the explicit (saying that there
is a problem) to the implicit (feedback during an encounter). In this and succeeding sections, we
discuss the function of feedback and how different forms of feedback might affect learning.
Figure 10.1 depicts this idea using attention as a mediating component.

3.1.5.1 Negotiation
Because of its emphasis on incorrect forms, negotiation functions as a catalyst for change.
Negotiation allows learners to look for extra confirmatory or nonconfirmatory evidence by
supplying them with information about faulty forms. If we assume that negotiation performs the
role of beginning change as a kind of negative evidence and a means of delivering feedback, then
must question what elements determine whether the begun change culminates in permanent
restructuring of linguistic knowledge. There must be reinforcement of what is learnt, as with any
sort of learning. Figure 10.2 depicts a diagram of this.

12
3.1.4.2 Hypothesis testing
For many years, the concept of hypothesis testing has been essential to second language
acquisition research (see Schachter, 1983, 1992).
Output is a method of testing a hypothesis, especially when it occurs as part of a negotiation
sequence. This is not to suggest that every time a second language speaker makes an utterance,
theories are being deliberately tested. However, via negotiation and feedback, learners might
become aware of the assumptions that they are entertaining while they develop language.

3.1.4.3 Automaticity

For many years, the concept of hypothesis testing has been essential to second language
acquisition research (see Schachter, 1983, 1992).
Output is a method of testing a hypothesis, especially when it occurs as part of a negotiation
sequence. This is not to suggest that every time a second language speaker makes an utterance,
theories are being deliberately tested. However, via negotiation and feedback, learners might
become aware of the assumptions that they are entertaining while they develop language.

3.1.4.4 Meaning-based to grammar-based processing

For many years, the concept of hypothesis testing has been essential to second language
acquisition research (see Schachter, 1983, 1992).
Output is a method of testing a hypothesis, especially when it occurs as part of a negotiation
sequence. This is not to suggest that every time a second language speaker makes an utterance,
theories are being deliberately tested. However, via negotiation and feedback, learners might
become aware of the assumptions that they are entertaining while they develop language.

13
 CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION

This work is a SLA research paper that focuses on the role of input, interaction, and output in
the development of oral fluency in the EFL environment from both a theoretical and a case study
perspective. SLA research indicates that intake, interaction, and output are critical in the
development of oral fluency, which is corroborated by the case study results.A nonnative speaker
can achieve near native-like proficiency in the EFL context if he or she has plenty of time to
learn English, adequate exposure to a wide variety of English, both spoken and written, a
genuine need to use English on a daily basis, and interaction with more knowledgeable ones, not
treating English as a subject to be learned, but as a means of communication, with the emphasis
on meaning first, then on the form of the language.

Learners' age, linguistic ability, personality, motivation, attention, and learning tactics were
also shown to be quite active in the study. It has been hypothesized that, in addition to intake,
engagement, and output, several additional elements influence oral fluency, and that the process
of second language learning is extremely intricate. It is difficult to determine which aspects are
crucial and which are less relevant since they are interconnected and work together to affect
learners. However, the findings of this study may provide some insights into the importance of
the role of input, interaction, and output in SLA and the nature of speaking, despite their
limitations due to the small scale of the case study and the two learners reported in the study
being young, and may serve as a foundation for future research.

14
 REFERENCE

Huang, T., Loerts, H., & Steinkrauss, R. (2022). The impact of second- and third-language
learning on language aptitude and working memory. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 25(2), 522–538.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1703894
Kuo, M.-M., & Lai, C.-C. (2006). Linguistics across Cultures: The Impact of Culture on Second
Language Learning. Journal of Foreign Language Instruction, 1–10.
Lewis, M. (2016). Second language acquisition: an introductory course. Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 282–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1006984
Saville-Troike, M. (2016). introduction SLA 2012.
Zhang, S. (2009). The Role of Input, Interaction and Output in the Development of Oral Fluency.
English Language Teaching, 2(4), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v2n4p91

15