I have been meaning to get this article into an edited form. Brian highlighted some particularly important passages in green but I put them in pink below because it shows up better. It’s worth the long read for obvous reasons. I love that it comes from a journal of scientific research and from Iran, and I also love the paragraph about the Zone of Proximal Development – I’m a big fan of Vygostsky and am thinking of getting one of those baseball jerseys with his name on my back.
European Journal of Scientific Research
ISSN 1450-216X Vol.23 No.3 (2008), pp.446-453
© EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2008
http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm
The Role of Interaction in L2 Acquisition: An
Emergentist Perspective
Leily Ziglari
PhD Student, Islamic Azad University-Science and Research Branch- Tehran- IRAN
E-mail: leily_ziglari@yahoo.com
This paper addresses the issue of “interaction” and its role in second language acquisition from the socio-cultural perspective. Interaction has two different but related meanings: interpersonal and intrapersonal. The former occurs as a social behavior when people communicate in face-to-face activity through oral medium or written medium. The latter can occur within one body, inner speech, or when different modules of the mind interact to construct meaning as a response to a phenomenon (Vygotsky 1978, cited in Ellis, 1999). The role of “interaction” in L2 learning has long been a controversial issue. On the one hand, there are theories such as UG which minimizes the role of
interaction and maximizes the learner internal mechanisms in acquisition. The followers of this theory consider the “interaction” as a kind of input to trigger the parameter setting (Cook, 1996). On the other hand, some interactionists believe that interaction is the means through which learners obtain data for learning (Ellis, 1999). In this article, the role of interaction has been addressed and discussed from the
social-interactionist perspective in L2. It is aimed to elaborate how this perspective defines “interaction” and to what extent it answers the following questions:
1. Is interaction related to second language acquisition? How?
2. Which types of interaction promote second language acquisition?
Finally, the implication of “interaction” on L2 classes and its application on language pedagogy would be addressed and discussed.
Interaction
There are two positions on how learning takes place: nature or nurture. “Nature” or “nurture” debate has always been controversial, especially in the field of language learning. The former means that learners learn the language by the innate knowledge about language, whereas the latter assumes that language development is inspired by the environment as learners are engaging in the interaction (Doughty & Long, 2003). Ellis (1994) defines interaction as when the participants of equal status that share similar need, make an effort to understand each other. If role relationship is asymmetrical, meaning negotiation is inhibited. He says that some other factors that influence interaction, except status, are: the nature of the task, characteristics of participants and participant structure. Today, with the focus on “process” in the path of language acquisition, it is believed that language is emerged through interaction and negotiation for meaning.
There is different set of evidence to support this claim. Doughty & Long (2003) elaborate on the idea that there are two types of evidence in the environment that foster acquisition: positive and negative evidence. Positive evidence is the well-formed sentences or “models” in which learners are exposed to, and negative evidence is the type of information that is given directly or indirectly to the learners when they make an incorrect form of utterance in their interactional exchange (Long 1996, cited in Ellis 1999). Gough & Hatch (1975, cited in Doughty & Long, 2003) were among the pioneers who proposed the idea that language acquisition is fostered by the conversation. Earlier in this field, it was assumed that language acquisition is fostered by the modified input in the environment; i.e., when the NS or proficient speakers adjust their language to the level of low-level learners to make it more comprehensible.
The Role of Interaction in L2 Acquisition: An Emergentist Perspective 447
The interactionists agree with Krashen’s comprehensible input, but focus on the question of how input could be made comprehensible. In interactionist view, there is more than speaker modification or modified input in the form of simplification if one looks at the interactional structure in general. They claim that “modified interaction” is necessary for making language comprehensible. “Simplification” is not sufficient, but rather providing an opportunity to interact with other speakers makes input comprehensible. “Modified interaction” works better than “simplification” or “premodification”. During modified interaction, learners make use of the following strategies to remove the
problematic areas in their interaction: comprehension checks, clarification requests or confirmation, self-repetition. So, the term “interaction” is different from “input modifications” that are the signs of “foreigner talk” which the adult provides some changes in the formal properties of utterances to learners. According to Doughty & Long (2003), interaction is not a forum for practice, but it forms a
basis for development.
Interaction Hypothesis (IH)
Doughty & Long (2003) have cited Long’s (1996) interaction hypothesis as negotiation for meaning triggers interactional adjustments by the NS, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities and output in production ways. Interaction hypothesis emphasizes on the role of negotiated interaction in language development. During negotiation works, the learner’s attention is
directed to:
1) The discrepancy between what s/he knows about L2 and what the L2 really is and
2) The areas of L2 which he doesn’t have information (Gass & Torrens, 2005).
In this case, negotiation is the initial step to learning and it is one part of interaction. Interaction hypothesis that proposed by Hatch (1978), Long (1983), Pica (1994) and Gass (1997), says that interaction is essential condition for SLA, through which speakers modify their speech and interaction patterns to help learners participate in a conversation (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). Ellis (1999) refers to IH as the conversational exchanges that arise when interlocutors seek to prevent a communicative breakdown or to remedy an actual communication stop that has arisen.
He believes that acquisition is promoted when the input to which learners are exposed is made comprehensible through the interactional modifications that arise when meaning is negotiated. This definition is the co-extensive with what Long (1983, cited in Ellis 1999) has called “interactional modification”; i.e. changes to the structures of utterances to accommodate problems of understanding.
Sociocultural Theory, Interaction and L2 Acquisition
Interactionists believe that in some conversational exchanges, sometimes communication problems arise (Ellis, 1999).Gass & Varonis (1985, cited in Ellis, 1994) has called it “pushdown” as it pushes the conversation down rather than makes it to proceed. Interaction creates condition to facilitate language acquisition or makes incidental acquisition rather than intentional acquisition. The early version of
“interaction” was similar to “input hypothesis” proposed by Krashen (1987). He said that there are three ways to obtain comprehensible input: context, simplified input and interaction. Long (1980, cited in Ellis 1999) agreed with Krashen that comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition, but he asserted the importance of “modified input”.
The next version of interaction proposed by Long (1996, cited in Ellis 1999) was that the role of negotiation is to facilitate the kinds of conscious “noticing”. In this version, the emphasis is on the learner internal mechanisms when s/he is interactionally involved in modified output. In this version, interaction is taken into account both “interpersonally” and “intrapersonally”. In the former, the learner notices input, whereas in the latter, they process information they got through input. In this version, negotiation supplies learner with positive evidence, negative evidence and opportunities for “modified 448 Leily Ziglari output”(Long 1996, cited in Ellis, 1999). So, the latter version of IH, emphasizes on the role of negative feedback, modified output, comprehensible input and recognizes that interaction is a connection between “input”, “learner internal capacities” and “output”. Some problems of this theory are:
a. There are some problems to distinguish separate parts of meaning negotiation
b. The theory of L2 based on a single type of interaction (negotiation sequences) is restricted
c. Problems of individual differences have been neglected
Van Lier (2006) also rejects the atomistic approach in traditional IH, arguing that language is holistic and dynamic. Accordingly, this version of theory does not lead to full competence and it paved the way for another perspective in SLA; i.e., Sociocultural theory.
Socio-cultural perspective considers the role of multilingual society and argues that SLA should pay attention to the role of learners when they use language for different purposes and in different contexts. Lantolf (1996, cited in Ellis 1999) argued that SLA in the view of IH is the process that occurs in the mind of learners rather than in people-embedded activity. He further asserts that interaction is a form of mediation through which learners construct new forms and functions collaboratively (Lantolf, 2000). Ellis (1999) says that the ethnographers believe that “interaction” is constructed by participants as they dynamically negotiate not just meaning, but also their role relationships and their cultural and social identities.
There are different views and perspectives which consider language acquisition as social process. In this paper the idea of Piaget and Vygotsky have been discussed. In the cognitive perspective of Piaget, social interaction is given a secondary role, whereas in Vygotsky’s perspective, social interaction is primary for development (Fletcher & Garman, 1986). Vygotsky and Piaget differ in how they relate social interaction to language acquisition. For Piaget, language has propositional and context-independent properties and it is a tool for abstract reasoning. Context and social functions of language have been given a secondary role in acquisition. The development of children’s behavior is a gradual process for centering to decentering, so that a child is able to talk about displaced entities and events.
In the perspective of Piaget, different stages in the child development are hierarchically related to each other, so that moral reasoning presupposes role-taking skills which presupposes, in turn, logico-mathematical reasoning. In Vygotsky’s perspective, context-dependent and social interaction is primary in language acquisition. He claims that meaning is socially constructed and emerges out of the learner interactions with his/her environment (Vygotsky 1978, cited in Kaufman 2004). Vygotsky (1981, cited in De Vries, 2000) refers to the key construct of socio-cultural theory as “mediation”. He believes that learning occurs when biologically determined mental functions evolve into higher-order functions through social interaction. To him, mediation is social interaction that is brought about by creating tools. According to socio-cultural theory, functions are performed in collaboration with others. As Vygotsky puts it, any function in the child’s development appears on two planes of social and psychological one, it moves from interpsychological to intrapsychological category.
He proposed the notion of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), where learner constructs meaning through socially-mediated interaction and when adults establish social interaction with children to help their language and cognitive development (Fletcher & Garman, 1986). According to Vygotsky, interaction provides scaffolding, the means through which one person assists another one who can not perform independently. External scaffolding includes modeling, coaching, providing feedback, while internal scaffolding is when learner is engaged in self-monitoring and reflection. In L1 acquisition, the mother-child interaction is an example of transition form interpsychological to
intrapsychological process mediated by communication (Fletcher & Garman, 1986). He believed that social interaction plays a role in learning development. If we set the goals as a) goals that the learner can obtain without assistance b)goals that are beyond the capacity of learners and c) goals that can be met if guidance is provided, then ZPD falls in the area of c, that is the area between the learner’s
potential development and his/her actual development (Ellis,1999). In other words, children are subject to “object regulation”, “other regulation” and “self-regulation” and the negotiation of meaning is a device to meet the “self-regulation” in which they can regulate their activities independently. In sociocultural theory, therefore, there are two kinds of interaction: “social interaction”, when people converse
with each other and “private speech” as children talk to themselves.
It can be noticed that the ideas in two different theories of IH and socio-cultural theory are different, but related. In the former, “social interaction” is taken into account, while in the latter, “social interaction” and “private speech” have been concerned. IH is limited by considering one type of interaction, i.e. negotiation of meaning, whereas the latter is much broader and deals with interaction in
general term. IH assumes that interaction facilitates acquisition by providing necessary data to the learner, whereas socio-cultural theory asserts that interaction is a social practice to shape and construct meaning. In IH, interaction facilitates learning and is neither necessary, nor sufficient. In socio-cultural theory, it is not only necessary, but primary in learning.
Ellis (1999) claims that it is beneficial to mix the perspectives of these theories and propose a much more comprehensive theory named “interactionist theory”. In interactionist perspective, interaction, whether interpersonal or intrapersonal, plays an important role in creating conditions for language acquisition. He further claims that interpersonal interaction is necessary for L1 but beneficial for L2, whereas intrapersonal interaction is necessary both for L1 and L2.
Interaction in L2 Acquisition
There are some research studies that have been carried out to confirm the relationship between interaction and L2 acquisition. Mackey (1999), for ex., carried out a research to address the issue of the relationship between interaction and second language development. He asserted that the nature of interaction and the role of the learner are critical factors along with the type of structure that may be affected through interaction. He concluded in this study that one feature that interacts with the learner internal factors to facilitate development is the participation in the interaction through which the condition is provided for the negotiation of meaning.
Gass & Torres (2005) defines interaction as exchanges in which there is some indication that an utterance has not been entirely understood. In this case, conversational exchange has the following structure:
-trigger (=makes communication breakdown)
indicator response (=response of the NNS)
Reaction (= reaction of NS to the utterance of NNS)
-a resolution
(=indicates some part of the
utterance is not understood)
This structure can be represented in the following dialogue:
Student 1: and what is your mom father’s job?
Student 2: my father is now retire. Trigger
Student 1: retired? Indicator of the problem
Student 2: yes. Resolution: Response
Student 1: oh, yes. Reaction
(from Varonis & Gass, 1985, cited in Ellis, 1999, p. 4)
They say that negative evidence directs the learner’s attention to error and so interaction is the first step in learning. They carried out a study on the ordering effect of input and interaction and concluded that learners exposed to input and interaction in combination outperformed those in conditions with only “input” or only “interaction”. They shed a light on the fact that interaction is an attention-drawing device and if it is followed by input, it enhances learning.
Pica, Young & Doughty (1987) carried out a pilot study to compare the comprehension of students under the two input conditions: pre-modified input and interactionally modified input. The former is when the speech of NS is characterized with decreased complexity, but increased length and redundancy like foreigner talk, whereas the latter, NS provides opportunities for NS-NNS interaction. The result of this study supported the idea that comprehension is increased when the context of the information is repeated and rehearsed through interaction. In NS-NNS interaction, both interlocutors (NS & NNS) modify the interaction to arrive at mutual understanding. They asserted that acquisition occurs by providing opportunities for discussion in the classroom if the input is comprehensible.
Socio-cultural approach has investigated the role of interaction in L2 acquisition and has emphasized how collaborative discourse construction lead to interaction. Ellis (1994) believes that input is important, but as an interactive input rather than non-interactive input. In other words, interactional modification is important in L2 acquisition than simplified input. With the advent of interactional hypothesis, the trend is shifted from “linguistic modification” to “interactional modification”. “Linguistic modification” may be in the form of “modified input” that is a specific kind of register that NS adjusts her/his speech when s/he is addressing NNS to make language clear and
unambiguous. It is through interaction that learners are exposed to such modified input.
Recently, interactional modification has caught the attention of SLA since it is one feature of foreigner talk. Interactional modification is further divided into either “discourse management” or “discourse repair” (Ellis, 1994). The former is to simplify the utterance to avoid communication breakdown, whereas the latter is to make use of repair after breakdown in communication has taken place. In this case, the language is modified by NS to make it comprehensible to the NNS. As it is represented below, in the case of “incomplete understanding”, remediation occurs in the form of “negotiation of meaning”, that is, the collaborative work which speakers are engaged in to meet mutual
understanding.
Figure 2: problematic communication types (from Gass and Varonis, cited in Ellis, 1994, p. 260)
Problematic
Communication
Non-engagement Miscommunication
Non-communication Communication
break off
misunderstanding Incomplete
understanding
Non
understanding
Partial
understanding
It can be found from these observations that interactional modifications occur in the act of conversation. This can be a reason which input per se is not sufficient for acquisition. Ellis (1994) asserts that in interactive discourse, there are some variables that influence the comprehension and leads to acquisition as learners are negotiating meaning. These variables are: “amount and type of information”, “extent to which learner is engaged in meaning negotiation”, “indirect feedback” and “the amount of effort that NS and NNS make to construct discourse. Some examples of the efforts that interlocutors make are using incorporative strategy, functions or vertical constructions. In vertical construction, NS provides the condition for NNS to construct meaning gradually over several turns. Vertical construction then leads to horizontal construction where the NNS produces the language in a single turn. The example of vertical construction is:
NNS: there’s a basen of flowers on the bookshelf
NS: a basin?
NNS: base
NS: a base?
NNS: a base
NS: oh, a vase
NNS; vase
(From Mackey, Gass, and McDonough 2000, cited in Doughty & Long 2003, p. 226)
However, some applied linguists like Doughty & Long (2003) bring some evidence that there is a problem of data in interactional perspectives. They argue that it is difficult to attribute the result of dialogic exchanges to learning or to consider it just a pure negotiation for meaning with no learning. In the above example, it is not clear whether learner has learnt the term “vase” as a result of negotiation
for meaning or it is a mere imitation. In spite of this comment, Gass & Varonis (1989, cited in Doughty & Long, 2003) carried out a study and found that the language elements the learner finally produced may be seen in his/her later speech and accordingly, their last utterance is not an “echo” of an appropriate response. They claimed that “positive feedback” can be obtained even when the learner is not engaged in the act of conversation, but “negative feedback” is the only scaffolding that is provided to learners through conversation.
How Make the “Interaction” Happen in the Classroom?
Ellis (1999) believes that when novice language learners control the discourse, the resulting negotiation is richer than when the language teacher, NS or the competent language speaker controls the discourse. In the case of not controlling the discourse, the language learner either waits or abandons to speak later. According to the socio-cultural view, if the discourse control is in the hand of the teacher, it makes
learners outside the ZPD. So, in the area of discourse control, the notion topic is hidden.
Providing “tasks” in the classroom causes the students to be involved in topic- rather than activity-centered condition. Task as defined by Ellis (1999), are activities that require learners to attend to what is being talked about rather than how language is used. Van Lier (1988, cited in 2004) points out that “talk” in the classroom is focused on how things are said or done, than on what is talked about. He uses the term “activity” and stresses that the class should be on “activity” or “topic”. Topic-oriented classrooms cause learners to control over the discourse. The second aspect of discourse control is conversation, interview, talking circle.
By taking part either in “conversation” or “interview”, the participants collaboratively construct the discourse. In language acquisition, mother provides a supportive role to the child and helps him to proceed in the discourse; whereas in the classroom, the teacher controls the discourse by providing an IRF exchange to conform the language to the goal of the activity (Ellis, 1999). IRF means that the teacher initiates, learner responds and the teacher provides feedback. Another suggestion is to provide “topicalisation” in the classroom. Ellis (1999) also sheds light on the fact that other choices are to bring “talking circle” in the class or feel sure that “framework” of communication in the classroom is conducted in the target language.
Johnson (1995, cited in Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991) provides 5 key characteristics for an acquisition-rich classroom:
a. Creating a context of language use, so that students have a reason to attend to language
b. Positive opportunities for learners to express their personal meanings
c. Helping learners to participate in activities that are beyond their level of proficiency
d. Offering a full range of contexts that cater for a full performance in the language
Limitation of Interactional Perspective
Ellis (1999) argues that the early version of Interaction Hypothesis (IH) in which its followers believe that comprehensible input leads to interaction, has several weaknesses. He carried out a study and some of the results are written in the following:
a. interaction facilitates comprehension (not cause it); when learners have opportunity to
signal their non-understanding and try to ask for clarification
b. there are individual differences with regard to the amount of their participation
c. comprehension does not depend on negotiation. Learners may benefit from the dialogic
interaction by other learners
d. modified input facilitates acquisition of word meanings
e. the most important factor to acquisition of word meaning is range (different contexts).
These studies provide limited support for the claim that interaction contributes to learning.
Limitation of Socio-Cultural Perspective
Ellis (1999) claims that in spite of the fact that socio-cultural paradigm has a lot to offer how interaction leads to acquisition and constructs meaning, it has some weaknesses. One is that the followers of this theory have examined L2 use rather than L2 acquisition. There is no distinction between “use” and “acquisition” in socio-cultural perspective. Second is that there should be some formal criteria to determine what type of speech, private or social, learners are producing. Private speech is performed by learners under guidance, whereas social speech is performed without help. The third one is that this theory is carried out cross-sectionally, rather than longitudinally. By doing
longitudinal study, it may be found whether there are some cognitive changes on the part of the learners as the result of interaction.
Conclusion
The interactionist perspective is more valid than mentalist one as they give more insights for language pedagogy and their ideas are easily translatable into language classes. There is a rich literature to support that there is a link between interaction and learning. The result of this research study shows that if teachers try to provide opportunities for oral discussion in their classes, encourage learners to initiate topics and put some responsibility on the part of their learners, the class would be enjoyable, creative and initiative. For those students who are either reserved or reluctant to participate in the classroom, the teacher can directly ask them to speak rather than wait for their responses. So, the first research question is affirmatively answered.
Another conclusion may be the fact that language is a sign of creativity and the ability to conform form of language to appropriate setting is one realization of this creativity. Through interaction and interpersonal relationships, creative language use plays an important role as the learner engage in discussion to meet the mutual understanding. If we are to claim that our language learning is meaningful, it should be embedded in conversation. By providing technological aids, software and realia in the classroom, even traditional textbooks and exercises like drills would be beneficial and promote acquisition.
In social setting, in general, and in classroom setting, in particular, there has always been misunderstanding or problems in communication among the interlocutors, through setting an appropriate time for “interaction”, these meaningful problems would be faded away and that setting, especially classroom setting, provides a context for growth and development for participants. It is worth saying that there should be some teacher training programs to expand teachers’ vision in collaborative teaching and constructivist approaches.
References
[1] De Vries, R. (2000). Vygotsky, Piaget, and education: a reciprocal assimilation of theories and
educational practices. New Ideas in Psychology, 18, 187-213. Retrieved May 14, 2007 from
www. Elsevier.com/locate/newideapsych
[2] Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP.
[3] Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
[4] Larsen-freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. London: Longman.
[5] Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook
of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Oxford: Blackwell.
[6] Gass, S. M., & Torres, M. J. (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the ordering effect of
input and interaction. SSLA, 27, 1-31.
[7] Hickmann, M. (1986). Psychological aspects of language acquisition. In P. Fletcher & M.
Garman (Eds.), Language acquisition: Studies in first language development (pp.9-
29).Cambridge: CUP.
[8] Kaufman, D. (2004). Constructivist issues in language learning and teaching. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 24, 303-319.
[9] Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London:
Prentice-Hall International.
[10] Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: OUP.
[11] Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: OUP.
[12] Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and language development: An empirical study of
question formation in ESL. SSLA, 21, 557-587.
[13] Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension.
TESOL Quarterly, 21(4).
[14] Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A Sociocultural
perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
