Input, output and interaction

Krashen (1981, 1987), drawing on empirical studies by Dulay and Burt (1974), formulated five hypotheses (the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, Natural Order Hypothesis, Monitor Hypothesis, Input Hypothesis, and Affective Filter Hypothesis) to explain second language acquisition, which he collectively called the ‘Input Hypothesis’. Central to Krashen’s work is perhaps the Input Hypothesis, because it answers the most crucial question of language learning process, that is, how one acquires language. The Input Hypothesis states that second language learners acquire a language structure that is ‘a little beyond’ where they are, by understanding that language. Learners understand the input basing on the context, their background knowledge and extra-linguistic information happening around the input.

Krashen’s work, according to Brown (1998) and Nunan (2004), among others, extrapolates three relevant ideas to support TBLT. Firstly, learners need to understand meaningful messages for learning. Krashen’s work regards meaningful reading and listening input as essential, especially in the early stage of language acquisition. This first idea argues against meaningless, decontextualised language work, where learners pay whole attention to a more structural view of language. The second idea is that learners learn new features just beyond their current level. This provides an implied suggestion in line with the conventional saying: Grade the task, not the language (Brown, 1998). The third idea resulting from Krashen’s work is the necessity of a motivating and relaxed classroom atmosphere to break down affective filters so as to promote confidence in learning.

Krashen’s hypotheses, in particular the Input Hypothesis, have attracted much interest, and indeed have become influential and controversial in the area of second language learning to date (Nunan, 2004), and as noted above, have contributed to the development of TBLT. However, TBLT is supported not only by his hypotheses, but also by a number of others such as Output Hypothesis and

44

Interaction Hypothesis, both of which examine the effectiveness of output, but in rather different forms.

The term ‘comprehensible output’ was proposed by Swain (Cummins & Swain, 1986; Swain, 1985), based on the data of immersion students in Canada. She claims that although comprehensible input plays a role in acquisition, it is not sufficient for acquisition to take place fully. Instead, the learner should produce comprehensible output. In doing do, the learner has the opportunity to produce the target language so that she can “pay attention to the means of expression needed in order to successfully convey his or her own intended meaning" (1986, p.133). Swain’s study reveals that, although the immersion students had a large amount of comprehensible input, they did not demonstrate native-like competence. Swain argues that it is the limited comprehensible output that students produce that leads to acquisition failure. Comprehensible output, argues Swain, is a mechanism independent of comprehensible input, in that it provides the learner with opportunities to move “from a purely semantic analysis of the language to a syntactic analysis of it” (1986, p.136). This hypothesis implies that language tasks should not only provide learners with comprehensible input, but should contain elements that ‘push’ learners to produce the target language. This idea was initially understood by many task designers and practitioners as relevant to tasks focusing principally on oral work; however, communicative tasks are now claimed to include all four language skills (Ellis, 2003b, 2009).

The role of output is incorporated by Long (1985a) in his Interaction Hypothesis, which emphasizes the role of negotiation of meaning (linguistic adjustments in conversations to get meaning across). Long asserts that evidence of non- comprehension from the listener naturally leads to reformulation of the speaker’s utterance, so as to make it comprehensible for the listener. In this process, when realising a breakdown in communication, that is, the listener does not understand the message, the speaker makes a modification of his message. This can be done through self-correction or with assistance from teachers or peers. Therefore, Long argues that negotiation of meaning promotes comprehensible input as well as output, and thus promotes acquisition. This hypothesis implies that negotiation of meaning should be included in pedagogical tasks. Since Long’s (1985a) claim, a

45

substantial body of research has been undertaken to investigate aspects of tasks that promote negotiation of meaning. For example, Long (1990) found that two- way tasks (such as an information gap task) and groupwork are characteristics that generate more negotiation of meaning. Other research studies (e.g., Berwick, 1990; Crookes & Rulon, 1988; Newton, 1991) investigated the use of open (such as opinion sharing) and closed tasks (such as deciding on a candidate) on negotiation of meaning, and indicated that closed tasks generate more negotiation of meaning than open tasks. Another study, which investigated the effectiveness of planning for task performance (Skehan, 1998), showed that planning not only leads to more negotiation of meaning, but also more fluent and accurate production of language. The Interactionist approach contributes to the formulation of task-based approaches by informing which types of tasks generate more negotiation of meaning and suggesting types of interaction for task-based instruction.

This section has outlined a number of theoretical grounds supporting TBLT. It has reviewed three theoretical strands, the assumptions of which provide theoretical support for the development of TBLT, namely Communicative Language Teaching, Sociocultural Theory and the three SLA hypotheses. The next section will review in detail the concept of task, the principles of TBLT, how tasks are distinguished from other classroom work, and key dimensions of task characteristics.