The learning of a second language
3.3. Input and interaction
Input can be defined as the language information or data the learner is exposed to and has access to. Ellis (1985: 127) describes it as "the language that is addressed to the L2 learner either by a native speaker or by another L2 learner". The notion of input should not be confused with that of intake. Intake refers to that part of the input which is really processed and assimilated by the learner. This language processing and assimilation does not usually occur at the very moment we are told or taught something. This may explain why learners may be using new linguistic forms without being completely aware of it.
This is quite common in the learning of vocabulary. So, for example, in the middle of a conversation we may introduce new words and expressions that we do not remember learning although we have been exposed to them at some time or another. Furthermore, the learning of a second language should not be regarded as a linear process. One should not think that a language is learned in chunks according to different, already established, degrees of difficulty, going from the most simple to the most complex. If teachers operate with syllabuses and with teaching units or lessons, it is mainly for pedagogical purposes rather than for learning requirements. The learning of a second language could be compared to a cycle; it is necessary to go back to areas already studied at some point to consolidate them. This explains the inclusion of consolidation or revision units in most modern textbooks.
From what has been said so far, it is clear that we cannot discuss SLA without mentioning input. The nature of this input may vary according to the form of exposure (whether natural setting or formal instruction), and the medium used for its transmission (speech or writing). The latter are not mutually exclusive and we may have a combination of several types. Thus, for example, we may think of an average secondary school pupil in our country. This learner receives input from different sources: the teacher, textbook, readers, audio and video tapes, other students in the class, satellite TV, etc.
A central topic in SLA has been the nature and role of this input. In fact, general SLA theories study and analyse this question from different perspectives.
Behaviourism, for instance, stressed the importance of input. The whole process of SLA could be easily controlled by presenting the L2 in the right doses to the learner. The second language was then learned automatically by
forming a series of habits. Chomsky, however, questioned this theory and claimed that, on many occasions, there was no match between the kind of language to be observed in input and the actual language the learners produced; in other words, there was no direct correlation between input and output. Chomsky believed that learners actually processed the information they received through the LAD explained above, playing down the role of the linguistic environment. We might say that while the behaviourist theory tries to explain progress purely in terms of what is going on outside the learner, the nativists emphasise those factors internal to the learner. The third view, the interactionist, treats the acquisition of language as the result of the interaction between the learner's mental process and the linguistic environment. It tries to put the two previous models together. The learner's processing mechanisms both determine and are determined by the nature of input. Therefore, the quality of input affects and is affected by the action of these internal mechanisms. For this interactionist view of SLA, the important data are not just the utterances produced by the learner, but the discourse which learner and caretaker both construct and negotiate. Out of this interaction, it is claimed, learning will take place.
There are still key questions that need to be answered in relation to the function of input in SLA. It is quite clear that simple exposure to linguistic information is not enough. We may, for example, devote a good number of hours to listening to the radio in Russian, but that does not mean that at the end of this long and tiring period we will be in a position to speak or even understand a few words of Russian. This suggests that input should be modified or adapted in some way so that actual learning may take place. In this respect Krashen (1985) asserts that for acquisition to occur, input should always be comprehensible and it should, in terms of its complexity, be slightly above the student's language level.
The concept of input is also important because it has a great number of pedagogical implications as regards the methodology and even the type of syllabus to be used by the second language teacher.
Interaction consists of the discourse jointly constructed by the learner and the interlocutor; input may then be the result of interaction.
Input and interaction have been studied in natural settings and in classroom environments. In the case of natural settings, input has to be considered in terms of foreigner talk. This usually involves a number of formal and interactional adjustments in native speaker speech. Foreigner talk occurs because of the need to negotiate meaning and to simplify language. It may be the product of universal processes of simplification also found in FLA creoles and pidgins. Certain differences have been observed according to the nature of the speaker and interlocutors, that is, depending on whether the native speaker is a child or adult.
Input and interaction in classrooms have been investigated by means of interactional analysis, the study of teacher talk, and discourse analysis. Studies on teacher talk reveal similar features to those found for foreigner talk, although ungrammatical modifications may be less common. Discourse analysis shows
that many classroom interactions follow an IRF (Initiate-Response-Feedback) pattern, which restricts the opportunity to negotiate meaning. However, other types of discourse appear when the L2 is used for general classroom organisation and for social purposes. Learner-centred teaching in subject or immersion classrooms, and CLIL-based programmes where the target language is vehicular, can lead to examples of interaction similar to those found in natural settings (Dalton-Puffer, 2007).
In one of the few existing studies on the effects of input and interaction on comprehension, Pica, Young and Doughty (1987) found that modifications in interaction produced higher levels of comprehension than modifications in the nature of input. In this study a group of sixteen learners were asked to complete a certain task under two different conditions. Under the first condition, students had to listen to a text read by a native speaker; the grammar and vocabulary of the text had been previously adapted and simplified. Under the second condition, learners listened to the same passage but without any kind of modification or adaptation. Instead they were allowed to ask questions to clarify certain points of and about the text. The results revealed that learners who were given the opportunity to ask questions and check their comprehension of the text understood it much more than those learners who listened to a more simplified version but had no opportunity to interact while doing the task.
In spite of this and other studies on the effects of input and interaction in SLA, we can say that there is little conclusive research showing whether input and interaction do affect SLA, what features of input and interaction are important, and what aspects of SLA are affected. Further investigation in this direction is thus required.
According to Ellis (1985), an "optimal learning environment" should meet the following characteristics:
- High quantity of input directed to the learner;
- Learner perceives need to communicate in the L2;
- Control over topic choice;
- Adherence to the "here-and-now" principle, at least initially;
- The learner needs the opportunity to listen to and to produce language used for different language functions;
- Exposure to a high amount of directives (commands, orders);
- Exposure to a high quantity of "extending utterances" (e.g. requests for clarification and confirmation, paraphrases and expansions); and
- Opportunities for uninhibited "practice" (which may provide opportunities to experiment using "new" forms).
Everything seems to indicate that a learning setting rich in these features will lead to successful SLA, but as yet there is little empirical evidence.