Input, interaction and output

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 (p. 418).
Introduction This paper presents an overview of what has come to be known as the Interaction Hypothesis, the basic tenet of which is that through input and interaction with interlocutors, language learners have opportunities to notice differences between their own formulations of the target language and the language of their conversational partners. They also receive feedback which both modifies the linguistic input they receive and pushes them to modify their output during conversation. This paper focuses on the major constructs of this approach to SLA, namely, input, interaction, feedback and output, and discusses recent literature that addresses these issues. We begin by noting that the Interaction Hypothesis subsumes aspects of the Input Hypothesis (Krashen 1982, 1985) and the original Output Hypothesis (Swain 1985, 1995). As we explain in Gass and Mackey (in press), the Interaction Hypothesis has been characterized and referred to in various ways, evolving over the years to the point that current research often refers to it as the interaction ‘approach’ or as a ‘model’ (see, for example, Block’s 2003 discussion of the input, interaction, output model). We return to these various characterizations at the end of this paper. In simple terms, the interaction approach considers exposure to language (input), production of language (output), and feedback on production (through interaction) as constructs that are important for understanding how second language learning takes
Learning
Feedback
Recasts
Figure 1. Model of Interaction and Learning
place. Many researchers also make reference to learners’ attentional processes. Gass (2003), for example, argues that interaction research “takes as its starting point the assumption that language learning is stimulated by communicative pressure and examines the relationship between communication and acquisition and the mechanisms (e.g., noticing, attention) that mediate between them” (p. 224). Long (1996) makes a similar claim, proposing that “environmental contributions to acquisition are mediated by selective attention and the learner’s developing L2 processing capacity, and that these resources are brought together most usefully… during negotiation for meaning. Negative feedback obtained… may be facilitative of L2 development” (p. 414). Swain’s (1993) emphasis is on output: “Learners need to be pushed to make use of their resources; they need to have their linguistic abilities stretched to their fullest; they need to reflect on their output and consider ways of modifying it to enhance comprehensibility, appropriateness, and accuracy” (pp. 160–161). Figure 1 characterizes the components of interaction. During interaction, there are instances in which the conversational participants negotiate meaning due to a lack of understanding. As part of this negotiation, learners receive feedback on their production, thereby potentially drawing attention to linguistic problems and leading them to notice gaps between their production and the target language. Long (1996) defines negotiation for meaning in the following way:
AILA Review 19 (2006), 3–7. issn 1461–0213 / e-issn 1570–5595 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
4
Susan Gass and Alison Mackey
Negotiation
Attention Noticing
Input, Interaction and Output
5
To explain the mechanisms involved in learning language as a result of this, Long notes that negotiation for meaning connects “input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways” (pp. 451–452). Having outlined the basic concepts involved in the interaction approach to second language acquisition, we turn now to a discussion of each of the specific constructs necessary for understanding how interaction and learning are linked. Input Input refers to language that is available to the learner through any medium (listening, reading, or gestural in the case of sign language). All theories of second language learning recognize the significance of input as a basic component in the acquisition process. Language is not learned in a vacuum; learners need “raw data” to serve as linguistic evidence which they can use to formulate hypotheses about the second language system. Even though all approaches to SLA recognize the significance of input, it is not the case that they all attribute the same weight to it. For example, researchers of Universal Grammar view input as a trigger that interacts with an innate system and/or the native language to promote language learning. Researchers who take a different perspective include those who consider the role of frequency of the input (see Ellis 2002), for example, the Associate-Cognitive Creed (see the chapter by N. Ellis), which suggests that language constructions are learned “through using language, engaging in communication” (p. 101) — in other words, through language use as well as exposure to input. Ellis further argues that “an individual’s creative linguistic competence emerges from the collaboration of the memories of all the utterances in their entire history of language use and from the frequency-biased abstraction of regularities within them” (p. 101, this volume). With frequency constituting a basis for understanding language learning, input quite clearly has an essential and central position. Since input forms the positive evidence that learners use as they construct their second language grammars, many researchers have attempted to characterize and describe the input that learners receive. One of the earliest studies in this regard is that of Ferguson (1971), who investigated what came to be known as foreigner talk, the language addressed to non-native speakers. Ferguson noted common phenomena amongst a range of speech types, although, it should be noted that his data were based on asking people what they thought they would say in certain situations, rather than what they actually did say. Specifically, in language directed toward linguistically less competent individuals (e.g., young children, learners of a language), he noted numerous adjustments that native speakers make to their speech in all areas, including pronunciation, grammar, and lexis. With regard to input, the following are examples taken from Ferguson’s original work, exemplifying language addressed to learners of Spanish and Arabic.