Interaction in SLA

The Psychology of SLA

Interaction in SLA

To be covered: Foreigner Talk, NS-NNS interaction, Interaction Hypothesis and Comprehensible Output

Textbook ch 5 Cognitive Approaches section 5.4

Input in Naturalistic Settings

Certain modifications occur in speech when it is addressed to L2 learners
These modifications facilitate communication, they may occur as implicit/explicit teaching activities and serve as expressions of empathy

Foreigner Talk

Is the way that NS’s talk to NNS’s ( Parentese, or Caretaker speech)

The functions of FT:

Promote communication
Signal, implicitly/explicitly, speakers attitudes towards their interlocutors
Teach the target language implicitly

Formal Simplifications are typical in FT

Adjustments may be grammatical or ungrammatical

Ex: Baseline talk: You won’t forget to buy the ice-cream on

your way home, will you?

Ungrammatical FT:No forget buying ice-cream, eh?

Grammatical FT:The ice-cream – you will not forget to buy it on your way home – Get it when you are coming home. All right?

Factors inducing ungrammatical FT

Low proficiency of the learner
NS is/thinks that s/he is of higher status than the NNS
NS has prior experience of using FT (but only of the kind used to address NNS of low proficiency)
the extent to which the conversation is spontaneous (less likely in planned, formal discourse)

Ferguson (1975) claimed that FT is an imitation of the way NNS speak. Some of its typical features are:

1) Omissions

the, be, inflectional suffixes, conjunctions

2) Expansions

full imperatives (You come back tomorrow) added tag (...OK? ...right?)

3) Replacements

all negatives became no
sometimes I is replaced by me (Me help you?)
rising intonation used instead of Aux ‘do’ in questions (You need help?)

FT often mirrors learner language

• example of Zoila (adult learner) & Rina (NS) (Hatch et al., 1978)

Z: Do you think is ready? R: I think is ready.

Z: I no liking this story. R: I no liking either.

Z: No, no is yours. R: It’s mine?
Z: Yes.

• R uses a grammatical form in the last example but Z only responds to the meaning rather than to the model

Ungrammatical modifications: Lack of respect or an expression of empathy?

Grammatical FT modifications

• Simplification
e.g., slower speech rate, shorter sentences, using less complex structures (e.g., fewer subordinate clauses), high frequency words

• Regularization
e.g., selecting basic, ‘explicit’ forms (e.g., full form instead of contracted, canonical word order), avoidance of idioms

• Elaboration
e.g., lengthening sentences in an attempt to make the meaning clear, contextualizing an item

Examples of Grammatical FT modifications

• Baseline (addressed to NS): The 747 is a large-sized jet manufactured by Boeing, an American company, with a seating capacity of over 500, arranged on two decks.

• Simplified FT: Well, er, ... the 747’s a big jet. And er... er... it’s a Boeing, an American plane. Er... there’s over 500 seats with er... some on top and er... some down below.

• Regularized FT: The 747, it is a big jet. It is made by Boeing which is an American company. The seats, they are on two levels. There is a top level and a bottom level.

• Elaborated FT: The Boeing 747 or jumbo, as it is called, is a very large jet, manufactured or made by an American company, a firm in Seattle USA. It has the capacity or space to seat a large number of passengers, over 500 people. The seats are on two decks or levels, some up on top and some down below.

(R. Ellis, 1994)

NS-NNS Interaction in Naturalistic Settings

Negotiation of meaning: the combined effort of speakers to overcome communication difficulties and achieve mutual understanding.

Interactional Modifications:

Discourse management is an attempt to simplify the discourse to avoid communication problems

Discourse repair occurs in case of communication breakdown or in response to an NNS utterance containing an error

Some examples of modifications

More here-and-now topics:
e.g. NS: Are you going to work?

More topic-initiating moves: e.g. NS: That’s a nice jacket.

More confirmation checks:
e.g. NNS: I went to cinema. - NS: The cinema?

More comprehension checks:
e.g. NS: It is raining cats and dogs. Do you follow?

Adapted from Ellis (1986)

Some examples of modifications [cont.]

More clarification requests:
e.g. NNS: She very long. - NS: Sorry?

More self- and other- repetitions:
e.g. NS: He got stuck in the window trying to get

in. He got stuck. (self-)
e.g. NNS: I went to the cinema. - NS: Yeah, you

went to the cinema. (other-)

Expansions:
e.g. NNS: I wear a sweater.

NS: Yes, you’re wearing a green sweater.

Discourse Management

▪ amount & type of info conveyed ▪ use of questions
▪ here-and-now orientation
▪ comprehension checks

▪ self-repetition etc.

Discourse Management (cont.)

Amount & type of info conveyed:

e.g., a study by Derwing (1989)

▪ NSs saw a film and told about it to NSs & NNNs (low proficiency)

▪ info classified into (1) crucial (2) non-essential major (3) minor (incl. irrelevant)

▪ no difference in the amount of crucial info
▪ NNSs received less major (2) & more minor (3) info

Conclusion: NSs adjust info when speaking to NNSs

Discourse Repair

▪ repair of communication breakdown
negotiation of meaning (requests for clarification, confirmation; self- and other-repetitions) relinquishing topic

▪ repair of learner error

Examples of NS-NSS interaction

NS: Is this the final?
NNS: Uhh, it’s un mmm pardon?
NS: Is this your final?
NNS: Fine...?
NS: Are you filing or is this the rough draft... or the final?NNS: Oh, I see. Final you mean last one?
NS: Right. Is it the last one?
NNS: Yessss (sounds unsure)
NS: Yeah, last copy?
NNS: Mmhmm (still sounds uncertain)
NS: Right... is it all typed now?

(restatements, comprehension checks)

Examples of NS-NSS interaction (cont.)

NS: Well, you can ask anyone how to get there. NNS: What? What?
NS: Most, most people know how to get here.

Many people know how to get here, okay? NNS: How to what?

NS: Many people know how to get here. NNS: How together?
NS: Yeah, how to get to the restaurant. NNS: An get to the restaurant.

NS: Yeah, okay?
(repetitions of the original utterances by NSs)

Examples of NS-NSS interaction (cont.)

NNS: I like men American but I no no... I no...

Have nothing...
NS: Oh, I see. You don’t have a boyfriend here.NNS: No boyfriend American.
NNS: Before here 3, 2 months

I live my mother.
NS: For two months you lived with your mother.

(paraphrasing & correcting)

Interaction Approach

Mackey (2012) states: “The interactionist approach posits that the interaction ‘work’ that occurs when a learner and his/her interlocutor (whether a native speaker or a more proficient learner) encounter some kind of communication breakdown is beneficial for L2 development” (p. 8).

Gass (2003) writes that interaction research “takes as its starting point that language learning is stimulated by communicative pressure and examines the relationship between communication and acquisition and the mechanisms (e.g., noticing, attention) that mediate between them” (p. 224).

Long’s Interaction Hypothesis

(1985, 1996) – textbook section 5.4.1

Recall Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

Long proposed Interaction Hypothesis:

Comprehensible Input is most effective when it is modified through the negotiation of meaning, in other words, it is the result of modified interaction.

▪Through negotiation of meaning, learners often receive input relevant to the aspects of grammar that they have not yet acquired.

▪They are often provided with negative evidence.

Comprehensible Output (Swain 1985, 1995, 2005)

– textbook section 5.4.2

Krashen’s view: output is the result of acquisition

Swain’s view: output is necessary for acquisition.

Comprehensible output:

▪serves a consciousness-raising function (helps learners notice gaps in their IL)

▪helps learners test hypotheses about L2 & receive feedback on them

▪enhances metalinguistic awareness (knowledge about language)

Reflection/Discussion:

One possible critique of the Interaction/Output approach is that it ignores the broader social context of language learning variables that may come into play in peoples’ interactions, e.g., power relationships, social status, or gender. Do you think this is a valid criticism? In your opinion, to what extent would an SLA theory need to consider such social factors?