Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Psychology of Language Learning: Interactionist Models
Psychology of Language Learning: Interactionist Models
Learning
Interactionist models
1
Aims of session(s)
Introduce and discuss concepts of input and intake,
attention, noticing, interaction, and output and how
these relate to SLA
Input processing view (Van Patten)
Interaction Hypothesis (Long)
Data analysis relating to the Interaction Hypothesis
Introduce and discuss the Input – Interaction –
Output model (Gass 1988)
2
Discussion Questions
What do the terms input, interaction and
output mean to you in relation to language
learning?
What is the role of conversation in the
language classroom?
Are there ‘good’ and ‘bad’ ways in which
3
Different views of Input:
Krashen’s view:
◦ comprehensible input drives acquisition
◦ the Affective filter accounts for variation in
acquisition.
4
Different views of Input:
5
Input processing account
Processing Restructuring
constraints of intake
6
Input Processing principle 1
When subjects are told to repeat sentences they hear, they
choose content words. Only advanced students are able to
pick out grammatical items.
Morphological changes where there is less redundancy in
meaning:
◦ Where is she going?
◦ What are you doing?
◦ He come to see me yesterday.
◦ Last week I visit my aunt in London.
◦ He love me.
7
Input Processing principle 1
Lexical items before grammatical items
◦ Two beer
P1: _______________
8
Input Processing principle 1
Lexical items before grammatical items
◦ Two beer
9
Input Processing principle 2
Journal Entry Week 21: …
I’m suddenly hearing things I never heard before, including
10
Input Processing principle 2
Journal Entry Week 22: I just said to N o que é que você quer
but quickly: [kekseker]. Previously, I would have said just o
que. N didn’t blink, so I guess I got it right….
(Schmidt and Frota 1986)
P2: _____________________
11
Input Processing principle 2
Journal Entry Week 22: I just said to N o que é que você quer
but quickly: [kekseker]. Previously, I would have said just o
que. N didn’t blink, so I guess I got it right….
(Schmidt and Frota 1986)
12
Noticing in SLA
Schmidt 1990 ‘The role of consciousness in second
language learning’
Noticing = registering occurrence of a feature in
input (may not be explicit) / selective attention.
13
Noticing in SLA
Immersion studies indicate that despite
comprehensible input, motivation and skills
L2 learners still produce grammatical errors
1984)
14
Noticing in SLA
Schmidt (2001):
Learning occurs when the features and
Attention is selective
15
Input processing principle 3
Which requires more grammatical knowledge
to decode?
◦ The lion killed the hunter
◦ The lion was killed by the hunter
Which is the most likely?
◦ The parent corrected the child for his behaviour.
◦ The child corrected the parent for his behaviour.
16
Input processing principle 3
First noun acts as agent /subject
This strategy can be overridden by lexical
semantics and event probabilities
Learners adopt other processing strategies for
grammatical roles only after their developing
system has incorporated other cues (e.g. case
marking, stress).
Preference for analysing beginnings and ends of
sentences, glossing over middles.
P3: _______________________________
17
Input processing principle 3
First noun acts as agent /subject
This strategy can be overridden by lexical
semantics and event probabilities
Learners adopt other processing strategies for
grammatical roles only after their developing
system has incorporated other cues (e.g. case
marking, stress).
Preference for analysing beginnings and ends of
sentences, glossing over middles.
P3: First noun strategy
18
Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996)
What are your experiences of early real,
meaningful interaction with fluent speakers
of L2?
What happened? Did your interlocutor correct
19
Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996)
20
Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996)
Long (1996: 418) :
Negotiation as ‘ the process in which, in an effort
to communicate, learners and competent speakers
provide and interpret signals of their own and their
interlocutor’s perceived comprehension, thus
provoking adjustments to linguistic form,
conversational structure, message content, or all
three until an acceptable level of understanding is
achieved'.
21
Example of Negotiation for Meaning:
22
Conversational modifications
Repetitions
Confirmation checks
Comprehension checks
Clarification requests
23
Conversational modifications
24
Negative feedback
‘It is proposed that environmental contributions to acquisition
are mediated by selective attention and the learner’s
developing L2 processing capacity, and that these resources
are brought together most usefully, and not exclusively,
during negotiation for meaning. Negative feedback obtained
during negotiation work or elsewhere may be facilitative of L2
development, at least for vocabulary, morphology and
language-specific syntax, and essential for learning certain
specific L1-L2 contrasts. ''
25
What is happening?
NS: Where do you put the saucepan?
NNS: Saucepan? (pause) Um under the, the
first to cook…the food.
NS: Under the cooker?
NNS: Yep
NS: on the floor?
NNS: No, in the cooker. On the cooker.
26
What is happening?
H: a man is drinking –coffee or tea uh with the
saucer of the uh coffee set is uh in his uh knee
Iz : in him knee
H: uh on his knee
Iz: yeah
H: on his knee
Iz: oh so sorry. On his knee
27
Interaction for learning
Learning takes place through
incomprehensible input? (White 1987).
Lack of comprehension by others provides
28
Discussion:
What kind of teaching will promote
negotiation for meaning in the classroom?
29
Negotiation / modified output
(1a) (from Mackey and Philp 1998: 339)
1 NNS: Here and then the left.
2 NS: Sorry? Clarification request
3 NNS: Ah here and one ah where one ah one
30
Recast /modified output
(1b) (from Mackey et al. 2003: 37)
1 NNS: And in the er kitchen er cupboard no
on shef.
2 NS: On the shelf. I have it on the shelf.
Recast
3 NNS: In the shelf, yes OK. Modified output
31
Reading for next week:
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language
development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 21, 557-587.
32
Reading for next week:
Read the paper along side the notes from
Ortega on Blackboard site.
In particular, pay attention to notions of
33
Mackey 1999 paper
Scripted/pre-modified:
More proficient speaker:
Do you have a gun in your picture? A gun is like a
weepon.
More proficient speaker: Oh ok yeah I don’t have a
34
Mackey 1999
Pushed Output (Swain 1985)
Comprehension is not sufficient to drive
language development
Lexical processing/ gist understanding
Need to produce to focus on form needed
‘producing the target language may be the
35
Mackey 1999
Noticing the Gap
Noticing (paying attention to the form)
(Schmidt)
Noticing the gap (difference between NS /
current IL).
36
Negotiation of Form
Linguistic rather than communicative problem
37
Negative feedback
Explicit correction
Recasts
Elicitations
Clarification requests etc
38
Output – functions
Trigger for noticing (the hole)
Moving learners from lexical to syntactic
processing
Hypothesis testing and feedback on
hypotheses
Metalinguistic function (reflection on own
39
Output – functions
‘Negotiations serve to focus learners’
attention on potentially troublesome parts of
their discourse, providing them with
information which can open the door to IL
modification... It is the realisation of
divergence between L2 forms and target
language forms that becomes the catalyst for
learning.’
(Gass, Mackey and Pica 1998)
40
Negotiation of form
Example of possible (modelled) reconstruction dialogue:
R: OK, alors la première phrase commence avec ‘Les rues
étroites’
(OK so the first sentence begins with ‘the narrow streets’)
T: Oui, ‘les rues étroites’- N’oublie pas le ‘s’ sur ‘rue’
41
Dictogloss
Grammar dictation/ dictogloss (Swain 1998;
Wajnryb 1990 in Doughty and Williams (eds.)
1998)
Brief review of rules prior to dictogloss to
notes)
Learners work for 25 minutes to reconstruct
passage exactly.
Comparison of one reconstructed passage to
42
The Input- Interaction- Output Model
Apperceived input
Input
(Hypothesis testing)
Intake
Comprehended input
Integration
Output
(Negotiation)
43
The Input- Interaction- Output Model
Apperceived input
Input
(Hypothesis testing)
Intake
Comprehended input
Integration
Output
(Negotiation)
44
Achievements of Input-Interaction
NS and NNS interlocutors work to achieve mutual
understanding through interactional negotiations
Modifications to language offer opportunities to
notice TL forms – positive and negative evidence
Negotiations for meaning by NNS can lead to
attention to, take up and use of forms from NS
language
Explicit instruction and/or negative feedback is
advantageous to learners (when later tested)
45
Limitations of Interactionist research
Research in Western/anglophone educational
setting- wider studies needed
Still a long way to go in understanding which
tasks are most productive
More work needed on particular structures (like
Mackey 1999)
Learner readiness as a factor needs to be
accounted for (but Mackey 1999 suggest learners
may store understandings until ready?)
46
Limitations of Interactionist research
‘No magic bullet’
Interaction in tasks may be influenced by something other than
(Ortega 2009:77,8/80)
47
Cautious note:
Interaction connects ‘input, internal learner
capacities, particularly selective attention,
and output in productive ways’ (Long 1996:
452).
BUT ....
48
Cautious note:
‘It is still advisable to be cautious about the nature of
claims for the role of the environment in SLA. Although
interaction may provide a structure that allows input to
become salient and hence noticed, interaction should not
be seen as the cause of acquisition; it can only set the
scene for potential learning. As Long (1996) has pointed
out, there are many factors involved in L2 learning: the
role of interaction is claimed only to be facilitative. The
sources of learning are complex and can be seen as
stemming from the learner-internal factors…’ (my
italics).
49
Reading for next week:
After reading:
Now that you’ve read about what potential benefits
50
Another useful paper
51