INTERACTIONAL HYPOTHESIS

Royal University of Phnom PenhInstitute of Foreign Languages

Department of English

(Michael H. Long)

Group: 12Mr. BUT BorethMr. CHEA Piseth

Class: E4.5Year 2010-2011

Applied Linguistics 401Course lecturer:

Mr. MEAS Sopheak

1

OUTLINE

I. Introduction- Krashen’s input hypothesis- Long’s interactional hypothesis- Definition

II. How does the theory work?III. Limitation of Interactional

Hypothesis PerspectiveIV. Conclusion

2

I. Introduction

- Krashen’s Input Hypothesis:

in order to be acquired (Krashen, 1985).

Second language input must both be:- Comprehended

- be at one stage above the learner’s current level (i+1)

Recall Stephen D. Krashen

3

I. Introduction (Con’t)

Based on Krashen’s Input Hypothesis

- Concerning how input is made comprehensible

- Focus on modified input

- Modified input Negotiated interaction Communicating

Michael H. Long

- Long’s Interactional Hypothesis:

4

Definition:

I. Introduction (Con’t)

Interactional hypothesis referred to when learners engaged with their interlocutors in negotiations around meaning, the nature of the input might be qualitatively changed. (Long 1981, 1983a, 1996)

5

II. How does the theory work?

Interactional Hypothesis

Modified Interaction

Conversational Adjustment

Comprehension of input

Language acquisition

6

II. How does the theory work? (Con’t)

Types of modified input:

Pre-modified input: when the speech of NS is characterized with decreased complexity, but increased length and redundancy like foreigner talk.

Interactionally modified input: NS provides opportunities for NS-NNS interaction.

7

- Facilitation of comprehension by input modification (to overwhelm some communicative difficulties) :

II. How does the theory work? (Con’t)

(i) Repetition:- You said.....- To put it differently or in another way, .....- In other words.....

- Language users struggle to maximize comprehension- The more adjustment within interaction The more input becomes comprehensible

8

II. How does the theory work? (Con’t)

NNS*: what are they (.) what do they do your picture?NS**: what are they doing in my picture?NS: there's there's just a couple more thingsNNS: a sorry? Couple?

(ii) Confirmation Checks:

NNS*: Non-Native SpeakerNS**: Native Speaker

9

II. How does the theory work? (Con’t)

(iii) Comprehension Checks:Do you understand?

Is this clear? Do you see that...?

(iv) Clarification Request:Could you say that again?Could you elaborate?What do you mean by this...?

10

III. Limitation of IH Perspective

interaction facilitates comprehension (not cause it)

when learners have opportunity to signal their non-understanding and try to ask for clarification

(Ellis, 1999)

1

11

III. Limitation of IH Perspective

comprehension does not depend on negotiation.

Learners may benefit from the dialogic interaction by other learners (Ellis, 1999)

2

(Con’t)12

III. Limitation of IH Perspective

the most important factor to acquisition of word meaning is range (different contexts). (Ellis, 1999)

Input and interaction alone are not enough to learn a target language

3

(Con’t)

4

Individual differences have been neglected(Ellis, 1999, & Ziglari, 2008)

5

13

III. Limitation of IH Perspective

Interactional hypothesis has an atomistic(1) aspect, while language is, in fact, holistic(2) and dynamic.

(Ellis, 1999, & Van Lier, 2004)

modified input just facilitates acquisition of word meanings not the whole utterance

6

(Con’t)

(1) atomistic: Consisting of many separate, often disparate elements(2) holistic: Concerned with wholes rather than analysis or separation into parts

14

IV. Conclusion

- There is a rich literature to support that there is a link between interaction and learning. (Ellis, 1999)

- IH ideas are easily translatable into language classes.

- IH in class the class would be enjoyable, creative and initiative.

15

Thanks for your attention

Q&A

16

References17

Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Rouledge-Taylor & Francis: New York. Krashen, S. (1983). Newmark’s “Ignorance Hypothesis” and current second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning , pp.135-153. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Long, M. 1981: Input, interaction, and second language acquisition . Foreign Language Acquisition: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , (379) , 259 78. Long, M. 1983: Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers . Studies in Second Language Acquisition , (5) , 177 93. Long, M.H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition, pp. 377-393. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Long, M. 1996: The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition . In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press , 413 68.

Mitchell, R. ,& Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories (Second Edition). Hodder Arnold: UK. Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Xu, F. (2010). The Role of Input and Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Cross-Cultural Communication. Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 11-17. Canada. Ziglari, L. (2008). The Role of Interaction in L2 Acquisition: An Emergentist Perspective. European Journal of Scientific Research. Vol.23 No.3, pp.446-453.