According to Gass and Selinker (2001), Second Language Acquisition (SLA) re- fers to the ‘process of learning another language after the native language has been learned’ (p. 5). That is, SLA studies how learners create a new language system with only a limited exposure to a second (and/or foreign) language. Within SLA, teacher talk has been looked at through three prominent perspectives: Krashen’s Input hypoth- esis, Long’s Interaction hypothesis, and Swain’s Output hypothesis. In the following sections, each of these hypotheses will be discussed in detail with classroom interac- tion in mind.
3.6.1 Input and interaction hypotheses
Ellis (1985, 2005a) defines input in SLA as ‘the language that is addressed to the L2 learner either by a native speaker or by another L2 learner’ (1985, p. 127). He stresses that SLA is strongly aided through employing comprehensible input. For Krashen (1982), the comprehensible ‘Input Hypothesis’ suggests that opportunities for SLA are maximized when language learners are exposed to language input which is just a little beyond their current level of competence. According to his theory, learners will be able to acquire the underlying linguistic structures of language if provided with input just ‘a bit beyond (their) current level of competence (i+1)’ where i is the learn- er’s current level of language competence (Krashen, 1982, p. 21). The internalization of linguistic structures will occur ‘with the help of context or extra-linguistic knowledge’. The hypothesis specifically states that:
Humans acquire language in only one way, by understanding messages, or by receiving ‘comprehensible input’…We move from i, our current level, to i+1, the next level along the natural order, by understanding input con- taining i+1 (Krashen, 1985, p. 2)
The hypothesis suggests that as long as learners are exposed to comprehensible input, their oral productive skill, i.e. speaking, will emerge automatically and the necessary grammar will be automatically provided. Despite the fact that such a hypothesis has been criticized for lack of precision and for being difficult to test, Ellis (2003, 2005b)
P a g e| 35 insists that for successful language teaching, message-oriented input should be provid- ed. That is, teachers should not use language that is far beyond students’ current levels of linguistic competence, as this will only lead to accumulated frustration on the stu- dents’ part. Negotiating meaning in the form of interaction is thought to be the best way of generating such input. However, negotiation of meaning involves modifica- tions and simplifications in all aspects of the language involved, including the gram- mar (syntax), pronunciation (phonology), vocabulary (morphology) and even dis- course (Schmitt, 2010).
For its supporters, the ‘input hypothesis’ offers a platform for subsequent interaction. From this, a new line of discussion came into prominence with Long’s ‘interaction hy- potheses’. Long (1983) and later studies argue that simplifying the linguistic elements does not represent the key value of interaction. Instead, it is the modifications in the interaction patterns (e.g. clarifying, paraphrasing, and repeating) that bring about lan- guage acquisition (Schmitt, 2010). This idea later became known as Long’s Interaction Hypothesis, which suggests that two-way information-gap tasks raise learners’ in- volvement in learning and naturally maximize their learning opportunities. That is, the more the input is recycled and refined, the greater is its potential usefulness as input. In this way, the input will become ‘tailored’ or fine-tuned to suit the learner’s particu- lar developmental needs. Fine-tuning occurs as learners obtain feedback on the lan- guage they are producing in the form of repetition, confirmation check, comprehension check or clarification requests (Mitchell & Myles, 2004). Figure 3.3 illustrates Long’s view of the progressive relationship between the type of interactional tasks (e.g., con- versation, or classroom negotiation of meaning) and language acquisition.
P a g e| 36 Figure 3.3 Interactional task and language acquisition
In addition, Gass and Selinker (2001) highlighted the role of interaction in SLA, stat- ing that ‘in conditions where learners received only pre-modified input but where no opportunities were allowed for interaction, development was not noted’ (p. 298). Gass and Varonis (1994) also acknowledged the importance of negotiated interaction in second language when the learner pays sufficient attention to notice any gaps in the in- teraction. Such a perception of the gap might lead to grammar restructuring. Mackey’s (1999) study yielded significant evidence that if learners get opportunities to interact and negotiate for meaning, their second language development (acquisition and pro- duction) will be facilitated and boosted more easily.
Verbal communication task involving two- way exchange of information
Opportunity for less competent speaker to provide feedback on his/her comprehension
Negotiated codification of conversation Comprehensible input
P a g e| 37
3.6.2 The output hypothesis
Taking another perspective, Swain (1985, 1996) argues that input alone cannot be given the credit for language learning proficiency, as it mainly contributes to the grammatical competence of learners rather than their communicative competence. The lack of proficiency of second language learners, coupled with an apparent lack of pro- ductive use of the target language, led Swain to flag up the crucial role that output could play in the development of second language. For language acquisition, input is not sufficient because ‘hearing a language alone cannot account for producing syntac- tic structures’ (Gass & Selinker, 2001, p. 277). Swain and Lapkin (1995) explain that the comprehensible output refers to the ‘learner need to be pushed toward the delivery of a message that is not only conveyed, but that is conveyed precisely, coherently, and appropriately’ (p. 249).
It is through language production that learners become faced with the fact that they have to manoeuvre their language, come up with alternatives, and negotiate meaning to push the limit of their communicative competence. Hymes (1972 cited in Richards, 2001, p. 157) defines ‘communicative competence’ as the ability to use the linguistic system effectively and appropriately. Elaborating the same concept, Swain (1985) identifies four dimensions of ‘communicative competence’: grammatical competence (i.e. mastering syntactic and lexical forms appropriately), sociolinguistic competence (i.e. placing communicative purpose of interaction in the proper social context), dis- course competence (i.e. interpretation of individual message elements in terms of their interrelatedness), and strategic competence (i.e. using strategies for initiating, termi- nating, maintaining, repairing, and redirecting communication).
Although Krashen (1998) argues that advanced levels of linguistic competence are possible without output, the output hypothesis stresses the communicativeness role in- volved in the development of language. Unlike the input and interaction hypotheses, Swain acknowledges the language development of learners while trying to produce the target language and their attempts to gain feedback. While Krashen argues that speak- ing develops after learning, Swain observes that speaking is by itself a source of lan- guage learning.
P a g e| 38
3.6.3 Input, interaction and output
In the previous sections, language acquisition hypotheses have been summarized and reviewed. However, there is still an unanswered question that concerns to the in- terrelatedness of these hypotheses when it comes to teaching and learning of a second or foreign language. Walsh (2002, 2006b) points out that there now exists a substantial body of research evidence highlighting the interdependence of interaction, input, out- put and the need for negotiation of meaning. Besides highlighting the importance of communicative competence, Walsh calls for ‘L2 Classroom Interactional Competence’ which involves examining teachers’ use of language in relation to stated pedagogic goals as this obstructs or co-constructs interaction. Walsh also calls for exploring the extent to which teacher language use is ‘congruent’ with the pedagogic goals, and whether or not teachers are able to promote opportunities for learning by more careful, more conscious language use.
In addition, van Lier (1996) argues that language learning is a process in which ‘input flows from an external source (e.g., teachers or peers) to the learner, who processes it and then makes it available to produce output’ (p. 50). van Lier emphasises on the role of the co-construction of knowledge through interaction. He contends that students are expected to co-construct their knowledge through interacting with other people ei- ther in the flesh, through pair and group work, or in their writing.
Having reviewed theories on second language acquisition, it becomes clear that class- room interaction, metaphorically speaking, resembles the mortar that brings language learning components together. The aforementioned hypotheses on SLA in relation with classroom interaction imply amongst other things the following:
Language teachers should produce comprehensible input with the aim of even- tually making learners produce extended discourse in the target language. Language teachers should provide learners with ample opportunities to inter-
communicate in the target language, negotiate meaning with peers and/or teachers, and develop learners’ different aspects of communicative competence
P a g e| 39 Based on what has been discussed, it becomes clear that quality EFL teaching needs to be interactive, dialogic and of co-constructive in nature.
3.6.4 Talk in SLA
It is probably not an exaggeration to say that most classroom interaction is carried out by the means of teacher talk. Therefore, teacher talk is central to second (or for- eign) language acquisition. What matters the most is the ‘quality’ of this talk rather than the quantity. Nunan (1991, 2001) argues that classroom management and teacher- student interaction are integral to sound methodological practice in SLA. Nunan is in favour of using ‘elaborative’ language through the use of repetition, paraphrase, and rhetorical makers instead of using ‘simplified modified’ language. He comes to the conclusion that students will improve more rapidly if they are actively engaged in in- teraction.