Contributions of L2 Interaction to L2 Acquisition: Promoting Comprehensible Inpu

【Abstract】Interaction has been considered as a significant contributor to second language acquisition. Drawing on Long’s Interaction Hypothesis， this paper mainly discusses its beneficial roles from three aspects： comprehensible input， negative feedback and modified output. It is aimed to fully understand the role of interaction in the complicated process of L2 acquisition and provide some pedagogic recommendations on L2 instruction.

【Key words】Interaction； Long’s Interaction Hypothesis； Comprehensible input； negative feedback； Modified output； Pedagogical recommendations

Introduction

In regard of how second language is actually acquired， linguistic researchers have been endeavoring to explore into the relationship between interaction and second language acquisition for years. Drawing from Sato’s （1986） longitudinal research initiated in Vietnam， the relationship between learners’ conversational interaction and L2 development is largely selective， which means that certain aspects of interaction are more helpful than others in facilitating L2 learning effectiveness.

Factors that have been recognized as the driving force for SLL through interaction are basically comprehensive input， negative feedback and modified output as Long （1996） mentions that “second language interaction can facilitate L2 development by offering opportunities for learners to receive comprehensive input and feedback， as well as to modify their output” （Pp.451）. Therefore， this article is aimed to analyze the contributions that l2 interaction makes to l2 acquisition from these three specific aspects.

1. The effect of interaction on promoting learners’ comprehensible input and facilitating their L2 acquisition

Comprehensible input in the interaction process is also called comprehension. It is originally put forward by Krashen （1982） in the Input Hypothesis， which claims that second language learners acquire the target language by comprehending input. According to his theory， learners progress and improve along the natural sequence when they receive some target language input which is one step beyond their previously constructed level of linguistic competence. The greater amount of comprehensible input will result in faster and better L2 acquisition， while the lack of access to it will cause little attainment. With a strong agreement to Krashen’s opinion that comprehensible input is necessary for second language acquisition， Long （1983） puts forwards the first version of Interaction hypothesis as an extension of Input Hypothesis， while emphasizing that greater importance should be attached to conversational interaction in which learners are engaged in for the purpose of understanding more comprehensively the usefulness and nature of input for SLA.

Actually， the Interaction Hypothesis mainly focuses on one particular conversational interaction， which is the negotiation of meaning. Long （1983） proposes that the negotiation between different interlocutors in interaction can effectively overcome communicational problems and facilitate mutual understanding. The original three-step procedures he comes up with as a of gaining insight into how interaction impact on SLA are following the sequence of 1） conversational/linguistic adjustment promote learners’ comprehensible input； 2） comprehensible input prompt language acquisition； 3） conversational /linguistic adjustment facilitate language acquisition. As a result， a particular emphasis is placed on the importance of some interaction modifications commonly applied by conversationalists， which may include confirmation check， comprehension check and clarification request. With the help of these strategies， interlocutors are capable of giving themselves a lot of time to the process the input， repairing their communication breakdowns and reaching a greater understanding.

The above argument has been extensively examined in plenty of studies and some supportive evidence has been found. The pioneering investigation on the importance of meaning negotiation for providing comprehensible input during the interaction between NS and NNS is undertaken by Pica et al. （1986）. They examine NNS’s comprehension of an English task given by a native speaker instructor under two diverse input conditions： 1） systematically （syntactically& semantically） pre-modified input without the opportunities for interaction； 2） unmodified input with the opportunities for interaction. Results show that both input conditions help the understanding of the linguistically complicated task direction and the interaction generates greater quantities of comprehensible input for NNS. However， this research does not explore deeply into the mechanism by which these input modifications are generated during the process of interaction.

Afterwards， Ellis （1994） makes a deeper exploration into whether negotiated interaction could facilitatelearners’ L2 comprehension. The comparison is made among baseline input （directions with no little modifications）， pre-modified input （previously elaborated and simplified input） and interactionally modified input. Only in the interactionally modified input group， students are permitted to request clarification about what they are uncertain and do not understand. Results indicate that compared to the baseline input and pre-modified input， interactionally modified input contributes to a better comprehension and even more vocabulary acquisition of learners. As a consequence， investigators argue for a facilitative role of interactionally modified input for L2 comprehension.

Also， in Gass and Varonis’s （1994） research， 16 intermediate- level NNS students are required to depict where to put different objects in two diverse linguistic environments （learners’ interaction permitted & learners’ interaction forbidden）. The researchers clearly find out that the NNS students who are allowed to negotiate meaning have achieve better cooperation and comprehension， making few mistakes in placing various objects.

More recently， Van den Branden （2000） conducts a study which is aimed to examine the effects of meaning negotiation on reading comprehension. Results demonstrate that the students who discuss the meaning of unmodified reading input with their learning partners achieve better comprehension than those who just receive pre-modified input. Further， the research also reveals that the meaning negotiation which involves teachers’ participation is better than simply learner-learner interaction.

In summary， negotiated interaction plays a significant role in promoting L2 learners’ comprehension. In the sense of the notion that comprehensible input performs essential in second language learning， interaction also contributes to the final acquisition of L2 to some degree. Therefore， how interaction influence the L2 acquisition should be extensively explored from other significant aspects， such as giving negative feedback and modifying learners’ output.

2. The effect of interaction on giving negative feedback to students and facilitating their L2 acquisition

Feedback is consistently an important characteristic of conversational interaction and the functions of feedback for the development of second language acquisition have also attracted considerable attention in interaction studies. In the field of interaction investigations， of primary interest is always the feedback that comes as an instant reaction to learners’ linguistic problems. This kind of feedback is what has been referred to as negative feedback or corrective feedback， acting as an indication of learners’ inadequacy of L2 acquisition.

It has been generally argued that during the process of interactional negotiation， when learners are endeavoring to communicate and trying to make their conversation understandable， their attention will be mainly on L2 form as well as meaning （Long， 1996）. Negative feedback is constantly considered to be associated with this kind of form negotiation， focusing on learners’ linguistic mistakes. Negotiation of form serves different pedagogical functions from negotiation of meaning， aiming at achieving the best linguistic accuracy of learners and eventually facilitating their L2 acquisition.

In mutual interaction， negative feedback is always provided by second language teachers or those listeners who are relatively more competent in L2. The general types of negative feedback in interaction are explicit correction， recasts， clarification requests， elicitation， metalinguistic feedback and repetition （Lyster & Ranta， 1997）. Through the utilization of them， learners are more likely to notice the mismatches between their interlanguage form and the target language form during conversational interaction， thus improving their L2 competence. This perception has also been investigated by a lot of researchers and they have found out some empirical evidence to support it.

White （1991） initially conducts an experiment on English learners’ development of adverb placement in France and indicates that negative feedback does indeed prompt the studying of adverb placement and may be essential to trigger an enduring change in learners’ grammar. A similar conclusion is drawn by Long （1998） and Doughty et al. （1999） after their investigations on learners’ acquisition of Spanish adverb placement. Moreover， in another empirical study comprising two grade five classes of French learners studying English， Trahey and White （1993） also discover the fact that while positive evidence can draw a clear picture for students to understand the difference between L1 and L2， negative evidence is highly indispensable to show what is impossible in L2 when it is possible in L1.

Afterwards， Mackey and Philp （1998） also search into the effect of negative feedback （recasts） on the development of English （L2） question forms by thirty-five low-leveled ESL learners （beginner & pre-intermediate learners）. In the pretest and posttest， Students who receive modified input are compared with those who experience constant recasts during the task-based interaction. Results indicate that advanced learners benefit much more from interaction with intensive recasts than interaction alone in producing higher level syntactic forms， however， recasts are equally effective with less advanced student.

Therefore， from the consequences of above investigations， negative feedback plays an essential role in the process of second language acquisition， although its effectiveness is occasionally constrained by some other factors， such as learners’ attention and noticing.

Actually， the Interaction Hypothesis （Long， 1996） also attaches a great significance to learners’ internal factor as noticing in its function of facilitating L2 learning. It is through conversational interaction （eg. negotiation， recasts， clarification） that learners’ attention is concentrated on a specific aspect of a second language， especially on discrepancies between language forms and interlanguage forms. In Mackey’s （2006） investigation on the relationship between learners’ noticing of negative feedback （negotiation and recasts） during classroom interaction and their development of L2 plurals， questions and past tense forms， she claims a positive relationship between students’ noticing of corrective feedback and L2 development of making questions. The students who report noticing show a more significant gain than those who do not in question construction.

Overall， learners are able to develop their L2 ability by receiving interactional negative feedback and pay attention to the gap between their utterance and the target language.

3. The effect of interaction on modifying learners’ output and facilitating their L2 acquisition

Most recently， learners’ output has been considered more and more important in the progress of their L2 acquisition， as plenty of investigations argue that input alone may not be adequate enough for a second language acquisition， particularly in utilizing correct syntax （word order） and morphology （word forms） of the target language. Also， according to Swain （1985）， the production of output may force second language learners to analyze the target language more syntactically and semantically， thus facilitate their language acquisition through a rising focus on linguistic form.

Learners’ production of output is also an indispensable part of interaction. During the conversation， learners gain more opportunities to improve their productive ability in L2 in respect that they are always forced to manipulate their current language knowledge to convey messages （Swain， 1985）. When they experience communicative difficulties， they are pushed to make their output more coherent， detailed and appropriate. For example：

NNS： here and then the left

NS： Sorry？

NNS： ah here and one ah where one ah one of them on the left？

NS： yeah ones behind the table and then the others on the left of the table.

（From Macky & Philp， 1998：339）

Here， the NNS is pushed to provide more comprehensible output to make his intended meaning understandable for others. Moreover， when communicating with native speakers of L2 or with more competent interlocutors or with L2 teachers， learners can actively get involved in language negotiation and receive more negative feedback. Such correction always makes them become more capable of modifying their output and acquire the previously unknown language points. For instance：

Teacher： What did you do then？

Student： we waited until the clock beat twelve.

Teacher： What？ （Negative feedback： Clarification Request）

Student： we waited until the clock beat twelve.

Teacher： Until the clock struck twelve. （Negative feedback： recast）

Student： Yes， until the clock struck twelve. （Students’ modification）

（From Gu， 2010：96）

Here， after receiving the negative feedback from the teacher， the student modifies his utterance and grasps the correct language form.

In the later version of Interaction Hypothesis， Long （1996） also argues that interaction is able to contribute to learners’ L2 acquisition through the opportunities for modified output. He positively views spoken （oral） production during interaction as “useful…because it elicits negative input and encourages analysis and grammaticization” （Long， 1996： 448）. Moreover， Pica （1996） also suggests that modified output may help students to analyze a message comprehensively and to produce forms which lie at the cutting edge of their language ability.

Besides， through tracking changes in students’ production when they are participating in interactive computer tasks， Linnell （1995） suggests that the output modifications that occur as a consequence of meaning negotiation during interaction are constantly following a target-like direction.

More recently， Sicola （2008） also conducts a survey to investigate the effects of negotiated interaction on learners’ acquisition of L2 phonological forms. Results indicate that through receiving different corrective feedback and modifying their production， learners produce more target-like pronunciation.

From the above empirical investigations， it can be generally concluded that interactional contexts， in which learners are provided with the opportunities to negotiate meaning and form， and encouraged to modify their output to make it more understandable， are more beneficial for the development of learners’ L2 acquisition.

4. Conclusion and pedagogic recommendations

To sum up， interaction does play a facilitative role in L2 learners’ language development through promoting comprehensible input， giving feedback and modifying learners’ output. Therefore， during L2 learning process， students should not be regarded as passive recipients of rigid language knowledge， but active participants of language interactions and constructions. For pedagogic purpose， all kinds of communicative and cooperative language activities， such as role-play， interview， informational gap and debate can be properly and effectively utilized in second language classrooms to maximize the opportunities for learners’ interaction with peers and teachers. However， when communicating with students， teachers should pay great attention to three aspects. First， they have to strategically modify their talk to make it more comprehensible for students. Second， they should frequently provide negative feedback according to students’ utterance， making them realize the errors. Third， they should generate more opportunities for students’ production， avoiding controlling and dominating conversations all the time. Also， when encouraging the interaction between learners through communicative activities， such as pair work or group work， teachers are highly suggested to put students of diverse language proficiency into a pair or a group to ensure the real effectiveness and helpfulness of interaction among them.

Reference：

[1]Doughty，CJ，Izumi，S & Zapata，G 1999，Recasts，Focused Recasts，and Models：Effects of L2 Spanish Word Order.Paper presented at the Second Language Forum，University of Minnesota，Minneapolis，MN.

[2]Ellis，R 1994，The Study of Second Language Acquisition.Oxford：Oxford University Press.

[3]Gass，S& Varonis，E 1994，Input，interaction and the second language production.Studies in Second Language Acquisition Research，16，283-302.

[4]Gu，QW 2010，On the development of Interaction Hypothesis and its limitation.Foreign Language Research，5，94-97.

[5]Krashen，S 1982，Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.New York：Pergamon Press.

[6]Linnell，J 1995，Negotiation as a context for learning syntax in a second language.Unpublished doctoral dissertation，University of Pennsylvania，Philadelphia.

[7]Long，MH 1983，Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers.Studies in Second Language Acquisition，5，177-193.

[8]Long，MH 1996，The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.In Ritchie，WC & Bhatia，TK（Eds.），Handbook of Language Acquisition（Pp.413-468）.San Diego：Academic Press.

[9]Long，MH 1998，Task-based Language Learning.Oxford：Blackwell.

[10]Lyster，R & Ranta，L 1997，Corrective feedback and learning uptake：negotiation of form in communicative classrooms.Studies in Second Language Acquisition，20，37-66.

[11]Mackey，A & Philp，J 1998，Conversational interaction and second language development：Recasts，responses and red herring？ Modern Language Journal，82，338-356.

[12]Mackey，A 2006，Feedback，noticing and instructed second language learning.Applied Linguistics，27（3），405-430.

[13]Pica，T 1996，Do second language learners need negotiation？ International Review of Applied Linguistics，34，1-21.

[14]Pica，T，Doughty，C & Young，R 1986，Making input comprehensible：Do international modifications help？ I.T.L.Review of Applied Linguistics，72，1-25.

[15]Sato，CJ 1986，Conversation and interlanguage development：Rethinking the connection.In Day，RR（Ed.），Talking to Learn：conversation in Second Language Acquisition（Pp.5-22），Rowley，MA：Newbury House.

[16]Schmidt，RW 1993，Awareness and second language acquisition.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics，13，206-226.

[17]Sicola，L 2008，“No，they won’t ‘just sound like each other’”：NNS-NNS negotiated interaction and attention to phonological form on targeted L2 pronunciation task.Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.（UMI No：3309508）.

[18]Swain，M 1985，Communicative competence：some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development.In Gass，S & Madden，CJ（Eds.），Input in Second Language Acquisition.Rowley，MA：Newbury House.

[19]Trahey，M & White，L 1993，Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom.Studies in Second Language Acquisition，15，181-204.

[20]Van den Branden，K 2000，Does negotiation of meaning promote reading comprehension？ A study of multilingual primary school class.Reading Research Quarterly，35（3），426-443.

[21]White，L 1991，Adverb placement in second language acquisition：Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom.Second Language Research，7，133-161.