Input and Interaction

INPUT AND INTERACTION
For this purpose we will borrow Ellis' definition of input as "target language samples to which the learner is exposed. It contains the raw data which the learner has to work on in the process of interlanguage construction. We will understand interaction as "the process of interpersonal communication”

2. Input and learning
The role of input comprehension has been of prime importance in second language acquisition (SLA) research and theory, especially during the past two decades. This has been motivated by the belief that a learner’s exposure to the target language is not in itself a sufficient condition for second language (L2) acquisition. From Corder’s (1967) early claims of input and intake to Krashen’s (1982) Input Hypothesis and Long’s (1983, 1996) Interaction Hypothesis, there has been a widespread conviction that input must be comprehended by the learner if it is to assist the acquisition process. Most studies which have examined the role of input in second language learning are in agreement on the fundamental importance of this element in the process of learning. A fundamental condition, according to several authors (for instance Krashen and Spolsky) is that input has to be sufficient in terms of quantity. Thus it would seem that the more the learner is exposed to the target language, the more he/she will learn. Without this amount of input interference or transfer can occur as well as fossilization.

2.1 Three potential sources of comprehensible input

The first kind is characterized by input that has been modified or simplified in some way before the learner sees or hears it. This can be repetitions, paraphrase of words or sentences, and reduction of sentence length and complexity etc. One example of modified input is The Foreigner talk. Foreigner Talk (FT) is the language used by native speakers when addressing non-native speakers and trying to communicate with them. A first important distinction we can draw in FT is its grammaticality or ungrammaticality. Native speakers often switch to ungrammatical speech when addressing learners in the belief that it makes language simpler and thus promotes communication. Ungrammatical Foreigner Talk occurs especially in natural environments, grammatical FT is the norm in most classrooms and instructional environments. Grammatical FT has: simplification, regularization, and elaboration. Leaving aside the grammaticality of modifications, studies of FT have recently switched their attention from linguistic to interactional modifications, which occur in FT even when the former do not. These type of modifications can be further divided into discourse management (any modification directed at preventing the occurrence of communication problems), and discourse repair (occurs when a communication breakdown has taken place or there has been an error in a learner utterance).
Another input modification is the Teacher Talk. The "special" language used by teachers in the classroom. The main features of this type are: the quantity of teacher talk which learners are exposed to; the modifications which teachers make to their speech in the classroom; and the types of questions which teachers put to learners (they make interaction in the classroom easier by clearly establishing the topic, by forcing students to speak; IRF, display question and referential questions, and open-closed questions). The last modified input is the Interlanguage Talk. It consists of the language that learners receive as input when addressed by other learners. ILT constitutes the primary source of input for many learners, especially in meaning-focused classes. The two main features of ILT are that it contains extensive negotiation of meaning, more than in FT discourse-, it is less grammatical overall than FT or teacher talk.
3. Input and language acquisition

Ellis made a classification into: reception-based hypotheses, which emphasize the importance of input as opposed to production-based hypotheses, which emphasize the role of learner output in the acquisition of L2. The first of the reception based hypotheses we will comment upon is the frequency hypothesis, which seeks to establish whether the frequency of linguistic features in the input is related to the frequency of the same features in the learner language. This hypothesis states that learners acquire linguistic features according to their frequency in the input; features which occur frequently are learnt before those which occur infrequently. Another interesting point about this hypothesis is that it does not require comprehension of the input. That is, it is based solely on the frequency of linguistic features and has nothing to do with the understanding of the content. Another hypothesis is the Input Hypothesis. This hypothesis shows how learners' interlanguages develop as a result of comprehending input that contains linguistic features one step beyond their current knowledge. Simplified input, is more adequately utilized to promote communication than to teach. There are two types of simplified input: one-way (passive activities such as watching television and reading) and two-way (active activities such as participating in a conversation). The optimal input for language acquisition. The input must be comprehensible in order for the learners to acquire the language. It also has to be relevant and interesting, elaborated, sufficient in quantity, and not grammatically sequenced.
4. Interaction and language acquisition
Wagner-Gough and Hatch (1975) were among the first second language researchers to consider the role of conversation in the development of a second language.

4.1 The function of interaction: the Interaction Hypothesis
Conversation is not only a medium of practice, but also the means by which learning takes place. In other words, conversational interaction in a second language forms the basis for the development of language rather than being only a forum for practice of specific language features. It has been hypothesized that the comprehensible input that results from input modifications and, in particular, from interactional modifications facilitates the natural development of a second language. According to Long, negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways. Allowing learners to negotiate for meaning whenever a communication problem arises promotes acquisition. What is intended is that through focused negotiation work, the learner's attentional resources may be oriented to (i) a particular discrepancy between what she or he “knows” about the second language and what is reality vis-a-vis the target language, or (ii) an area of the second language about which the learner has little or no information. the classroom does not typically constitute an acquisition-rich setting. Teachers typically dominate the talk by means of display questions designed to elicit predetermined responses from the learners and the talk that results is sometimes viewed as impoverished in comparison with that which takes place outside the classroom. Thus the interaction hypothesis asserts that input is made comprehensible as a result of modification to the interactional structure of conversations when communication problems arise. Consequently, the interaction hypothesis also states that two-way communication is more valuable than one-way communication for language acquisition, making both learner and teacher responsible. This hypothesis acknowledges three ways of making input comprehensible: context and simplified input, and negotiation of meaning. This term is 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. According to Long, there are five steps in language acquisition based on the Interaction Hypothesis:

1. Verbal communication task involving a two-way exchange of information.
2. Opportunity for the less competent speaker to provide feedback on his lack of comprehension. 3. Negotiated modification of conversation.
4. Comprehensible input.
5. Language acquisition.

4.2 Modified Output
The initial Interaction Hypothesis by Long focused more on the input. However, Long did allow more emphasis on the constitutive role for learner output. He recognized that learners could obtain interactionally modified input in the process of negotiation. This input, elicited by the learners’ previous output, helps them to comprehend the input, and focus their attention on new or partially learned linguistic forms, which enables their acquisition. He recognized that meaning negotiations induce learners to modify their own output which in turn may stimulate the acquisition process. Swain (1985) argues that while comprehensible input and the emphasis on interactional negotiation is essential, the role of interactional exchanges in second language acquisition may have much to do with ‘comprehensible output’ as it has to do with comprehensible input. According to Swain, the output may help learners to recognize a gap, it serves as a means by which learners can test hypotheses about comprehensibility or linguistic correctness, and it can help learners to develop metalinguistic knowledge. Swain maintains the position that both comprehensible input and comprehensible output are important for L2 acquisition.
4.3 Interactionally Modified Input
The next linguistic environment chosen as the second potential source of comprehensible input for L2 acquisition is characterized by opportunities for NS-NNS interactions in which both parties modify and restructure the interaction to arrive at mutual understanding.

4.4 Production-based Hypotheses
The Output Hypothesis was proposed by Swain as an addition to the input/interaction hypotheses and not as an alternative. Swain maintains that comprehensible input is necessary but insufficient for the acquisition of native-like levels of grammatical accuracy. The discourse hypothesis derives from the variability of language use in interlanguage systems. It claims that the kind of language that the learner is exposed to and participates in functions as a determinant of the sort of style he acquires. If the learner is only exposed to informal/unplanned language, he will only develop the capability of performing in this kind of discourse (pragmatic mode) conversely if he has experience of formal/planned language he will develop the syntactic mode. According to this hypothesis participation in the planned mode is required to achieve higher levels of grammatical competence because only in this type of language there is full grammaticalisation. The collaborative discourse hypothesis considers the joint action of both teacher and student in the construction of syntactical structures beyond the competence of the student. Lastly, the Topicalization Hypothesis claims that acquisition is facilitated if learners are allowed to nominate and control the topic of a conversation. Moreover, it claims that learners may benefit more from exchanges in which other students are involved than in participating in exchanges themselves. The pedagogic implication is that learners are to be given opportunities to initiate discourse by topic selection.
5. Input, interaction and teaching
Another attempt to improve the situation in the classroom from the point of view of input, is based on a suggestion of Edmonson's (1986). Edmonson stresses the high level of ambiguity that characterises language classrooms. This ambiguity is frequently present in the responses, in the form of feedback that teachers give to students, who may be unclear about what the teacher is signalling in feedback. Thus, Edmonson suggests, the teacher needs to try to be clear and transparent in his/her speech, as feedback is one way of facilitating second language learning. Another approach to providing learners with exposure to the L2 in the classroom involves teaching other subjects (e.g. history, literature, science and so on) through the second language. This is known as content teaching. Finally, it is important to bear in mind the relationship between a learner's exposure to input and interaction, and individual factors such as personality, cognitive style, attitude and motivation, among others.