Input, Interaction And Second Language Learners

This dissertation aims to explore the relationship among input, interaction and second language acquisition. It addresses four general questions:How does input/interaction contribute to L2 acquisition?Which types of input/interaction promote L2 acquisition?How do individual differences affect learners' ability to process modified input for acquisition?What kind of language pedagogy can provide learners with an acquisition-rich classroom?It is an incontrovertible fact that acquisition is dynamic and interactive and no existing model of any theory can fully and precisely describe this complex process. Therefore, an integrated model (Gass 1997) is presented at the beginning of this paper in order to provide an overview of SLA processes in which the contribution of input and interaction to language acquisition may be properly situated. The model may be, till now, the most useful in conceptualizing the various facets of acquisition. According to Gass's model, SLA involves overlapping, yet distinguishable sets of processes. Exposed to the ambient input, learners perceive selected aspects of the input, from which they derive some form of meaning representations of the messages. Comprehension and intake are considered to represent different processes, of which only the latter is used for further processing for learning. Through the processes of hypothesis formation, testing, modification, confirmation, and rejection, the intake may subsequently be integrated into the developing system. Finally, learners selectively use their developing system in their output.Then, we have a brief review of the Input Hypothesis and traced the development of the Interaction Hypothesis. In so doing, we have dealt with the nature and function of input of one kind or another in L2 acquisition and the roles that interaction and output play in the process of acquisition. It appears that what learners need for language development is not comprehensible input but incomprehensible input that triggers negotiation. Comprehension does not guarantee acquisition, but it does set the scene for potential acquisition. We must recognize different levels of comprehension and what L2 learners focus on as they process input. It should also be noted that not all types of modified input are equally worthwhile. Elaboration or modification of the conversational structure is more likely to result in comprehension, as either of them has the advantage of providing learners with richer information necessary for comprehension and further language learning. The output component represents more than the product of language knowledge. It is an active part of the overall acquisition process and may provide learners with a forum for important language learning functions: triggering noticing; testing hypotheses about the structures and meanings of the TL; developing automaticity in interlanguage production; and forcing a shift from meaning-based processing of the L2 to a syntactic mode.To investigate the relative effect of premodified input, interactionally modified input and modified output on comprehension and acquisition, Chapter Three reports an experimental study conducted within the theoretical framework of the Input, Interaction and Output Hypotheses. However, the study does not lend unequivocal support to the hypotheses. The main findings of the study are as follows:a. As claimed by the Interaction Hypothesis, negotiation of meaning promotes comprehension of input. However, a carefully-prepared premodified input can serve just as well. But it should be noted that it is not always easy to predict learners' comprehension difficulties and make the necessary adjustments in advance. The opportunity to negotiate does facilitate comprehension in that learners themselves have the opportunity to signal their non-understanding and thus gain some control over the ensuing input. Naturally it is easier to respond to a comprehension problem than to predict one.b. The Input Hypothesis claims the importance and the ce...