Input+in+SLA

8/13/2019 Input+in+SLA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/inputinsla 1/26

Week 10: Second LanguageAcquisition

Input, interaction and second languageacquisition



Outline Input and interaction in FLA

Input in SLA

Interaction in SLA

Output in SLA Negative evidence in language acquisition

Negative evidence in the L2 classroom Attention, consciousness-raising and „focus

on form‟



Input and interaction in FLA Baby talk: special speech style, or simplified

register, used by adults and caretakers when

talking with young children.

Child-directed speech (CDS): researchtradition focusing on how caretakers‟

interactions with young children help facilitatelanguage acquisition



Input and interaction in FLA (cont’d) CDS and plausible effect on children‟s

linguistic development Manage attention

Promote positive effect

Improve intelligibility Facilitate segmentation

Provide feedback

Provide correct models

Reduce processing load Encourage conversational participation

Explicitly teach social routines



Input and interaction in FLA (cont’d) CDS is typically semantically contingent, i.e. the

caretaker talks with the child about objects andevents to which the child is already pay attention.

Recasts are common.

Child: Fix Lily Mother: Oh … Lily will fix it.

Explicit formal corrections of the child‟s productions= useful negative evidence

Usually an expanded and grammatically correctversion of a prior child utterance

Positive correlations between the proportion ofrecasts used by a child‟s caretakers, and his or heroverall rate of development.



Input and interaction in FLA (cont’d) A relationship of particular formal characteristics of

CDS and children‟s developing control of particularconstructions

the caretaker‟s use of inverted yes-no questions(Have you been sleeping?) and children‟s

development of verbal auxiliaries in L1 English(salient fronted auxiliary vis à vis questions markedthrough intonation)

Caretakers‟ speech is derived primarily from thecommunicative goal of engaging in conversation with

a linguistically and cognitively less competent partner,and sustaining and directing attention, not teaching.

Cross-cultural studies of CDS show that children learnto speak perfectly well under a wide variety of socio-cultural conditions. Finely-tuned CDS is actually notnecessary.



Input and interaction in FLA (cont’d) Group settings encourage children to imitate and

produce „unanalysed and rote-learned segments,picked up in routinised situations‟

Children will not normally learn a language to whichthey are merely exposed in a decontexualised way,e.g. on TV.

Multi-dimensional models of acquisition arenecessary, including parental input, learningmechanisms and procedures, and innate constraintsbuild into the child.

Studies are necessary that look at the relationshipbetween particular features of the input, and relatedfeatures in the child‟s linguistic repertoire.



Input in SLA Foreigner talk: a simplified and pidgin-like variety

sometimes used to address strangers andforeigners.

Krashen‟s input hypothesis: The availability of(comprehensible) input is the only necessary andsufficient condition for language learning to takeplace

“Humans acquire language in only one way – byunderstanding messages, or by receiving„comprehensible input‟… We move from i, our current

level, to i + 1, the next level along the natural order,by understanding input containing i + 1” (Krashen,1985, p.2)

Speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause

If input is understood, and there is enough of it, thenecessary grammar is automatically provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin



Input in SLA (cont’d) 3 stages in turning input into intake

Understand an L2 i + 1 form (meaning)

Notice a gap between an L2 i + 1 form and the ILrule which the learner currently controls (lateromitted, as acquisition takes place entirelyincidentally or without awareness)

The i + 1 form reappears.

Some criticisms It‟s not clear how the learner‟s present state of

knowledge (i) is to be characterised.

It‟s not clear whether the i + 1 formular is intendedto apply to all aspects of language.

The processes whereby language in the socialenvironment is analysed and new elements areidentified and processed are not spelled out.



Interaction in SLA Typical register, „Foreigner Talk Discourse‟, addressed

to L2 learners is grammatically simplified utterances,i.e. shorter, with less complex grammar and anarrower range of vocabulary. Does it help promote L2 acquisition? How?

Long‟s interactional hypothesis (an extension ofKrashen‟s Input hypothesis)

3 steps Linguistic/conversational adjustments promote

comprehension of input.

Comprehensible input promotes acquisition.

Therefore, linguistic/conversational adjustmentspromote acquisition.



Interaction in SLA (cont’d) Long‟s study

16 NS-NNS, 16 NS-NS pairs, face-to-face oral tasks

Little difference between the two groups (grammaticalcomplexity)

Significant difference in the use of conversational tactics

(NS-NNS) such as repetitions, confirmation checks,comprehension checks or clarification requests. (p. 168)

Modifications to the interactional structure of conversationsthat take place in the process of negotiating acommunication problem help make input comprehensible toan L2 learner.

The more the input was queried, recycled and paraphrased,to increase its comprehensibility, the greater its potentialusefulness as input.

Types of tasks in which both partners are engaged mayaffect the types or amount of meaning negotiation (problem-solving tasks vs. open-ended discussions)



Interaction in SLA (cont’d) Research evidence shows the relationship

between interactional modifications and

increased comprehension.

Mixed results were found in the studies thattried to find the relationship betweeninteractional modifications and acquisition.



Reformulated Interaction Hypothesis Selective attention plays an important role in

the processing of comprehensible inputduring the negotiation of meaning.

Negative evidence obtained duringnegotiation of meaning may be facilitative of

L2 development



Output in SLA Functions of learner output

The noticing/triggering function – consciousness-raising role

The hypothesis-testing function The metalinguistic function, - reflective role

The production of TL may push the learner tobecome aware of gaps and problems in their currentL2 system (noticing)

It provides them with opportunities to experiment withnew structures and forms (testing hypothesis)

It provides them with opportunities to reflect on,discuss and analyse these problems explicitly(reflecting)



Output in SLA (cont’d) Only L2 production (i.e. output) really forces learners

to undertake complete grammatical processing anddrive forward the development of L2 syntax andmorphology

Comprehension vs. Production

(Pushed) Learner output seems most useful in thearea of vocabulary

Not enough evidence is obtained on the relationshipbetween learner output and the learning of grammar.

Rich input combined with a variety of noticingactivities may be enough to facilitate grammarlearning.



Negative evidence in language

acquisition FLA

Caretaker‟s speech is in general regular andwell-formed, i.e. positive evidence

Explicit negative evidence (parental correctionof a child‟s mistake) is rare.

(Implicit) negative evidence is regularlyavailable in CDS, exists in a usable form andis picked up and used by child learners at

least in the short term. ?? Negative evidence is necessary for

acquisition to take place.




acquisition (cont’d) SLA: Two main questions

To what extent is indirect negative evidence

about the nature of L2 made available to L2

learners, in the course of interaction? To what extent do learners notice and make

use of this evidence?




acquisition (cont’d) Main focuses: Spoken interaction

Different kinds of negative feedback i.e.

negotiation moves (e.g. clarification requests,

confirmation checks) Effects of recasts i.e. responses to non-target

NNS utterances that provide a TL ways of

expressing the original meaning.

Student: Why does the aliens attacked earth? Teacher: Right. Why did the aliens attack earth?




acquisition (cont’d) Main focuses (cont‟d)

Learners‟ uptake of recasts, i.e. immediately

following utterances produced by the learner.

Teacher: What did you do in the garden? NNS student: Mm, cut the tree

Teacher: You cut the trees. Were they big

trees or were they little bushes?

NNS student: Big trees




acquisition (cont’d) Oliver‟s study (1995): availability of negative

evidence in conversational Foreigner Talk

Discourse and its usability and take-up

More than 60% of the errors made by the NNSchildren subjects received negative evidence

from NS partners.

Negotiation moves multiple errors, semantic

ambiguity

NNS: It go just one line

NS: Just along the line?

NNS: Yer




acquisition (cont’d) Recasts single errors, specific grammatical

mistakes NNS: And the … boy is holding the girl hand and …

NS: Yer. The boy is holding the girl‟s hand. Child learners incorporated just under 10% of

the recasts into their following utterances.

“… input, and in this case, recasts can only be

usable if they are within the learnability range ofthe NNS… a substantial proportion of the

recasts that were not incorporated were beyond

the current L2 processing abilities of the NNSs.”




acquisition (cont’d) The amount of negative feedback is variable,

depending on interlocutor (adults, children) andon setting.

Negative feedback occurs regularly in mostkinds of L2 interaction, in response to non-TL

utterances

Learners try to produce more TL utterances.



Negative evidence in the L2 classroom Research tradition: Classroom error correction

60% Recasts (not leading to immediate self-correction, however)

34% Negotiation of form 6% Explicit meta-linguistic correction

Student: I goed to the movies last night.

Teacher: Go is an irregular verb and it does notform its past tense with the ending –ed.

Negative feedback types varied according tothe type of error made.

Lexical errors negotiation moves

Grammatical and phonological errors

recasts



Negative evidence in the L2 classroom

(cont’d) Recasts

More effective with phonological errors (60%

repair) than grammatical errors (22% repair,

mostly with T‟s negotiation) Recasts are not effective, e.g. in communicative

classroom



Attention, consciousness-raising and‘focus on form’ The amount of L2 learners‟ attention to form may

influence the extent to which L2 input and interactionactually produce L2 intake

„Noticing‟ (selective attention) = the process of bringing

some stimulus into focal attention (voluntarily orinvoluntarily)

„Noticing is the necessary and sufficient condition forthe conversion of input to intake for learning‟ (Schmidt,1994: 17)

The accuracy of the (recast) repetition depends on

Language level

Length of the recast

Number of corrections in the recast



Attention, consciousness-raising and‘focus on form’ (cont’d) The effectiveness of recast is probably due to

the saliency of the new form within the recast.

The saliency of the form helps L2 learners to

attend to forms, which in turn can lead togreater development by highlighting specific

forms in the input.

Documents

Input+in+SLA