The input period (early 1980s-mid 1990s)

The inquiry into dyadic interaction can be roughly divided into two periods: the input period (early 1980s-mid 1990s) and the output period (mid 1990s-present). Each period is marked by the utilization of different constructs when describing the occurrence of L2 learning during the interaction process and distinct theoretical perspectives for the account of how dyadic interaction provides opportunities for SLA: while studies

conducted during the input period attempted to reveal “how learners may benefit from the linguistic information they receive” (Mackey, 2007, p. 2) from the negotiation of

meaning between native speakers (NSs) and non-native speakers (NNSs) through the lens of interactionist theories; studies of the output period tended to draw on sociocultural SLA for the investigation of learners’ use of language for co-constructing and

internalizing knowledge about L2 within Language-Related-Episodes (hereafter referred to as LREs) during NNS-NNS interaction. Detailed information regarding each period is provided below.

Learners’ attention to L2 forms was initially not emphasized during the input period since a prevailing idea of the association between dyadic interaction and SLA was that linguistic input that is comprehensible to learners facilitates SLA. Well-known researchers stressing the importance of the comprehensibility of input to L2 development include Krashen (1982, 1985) and Long (1983a, 1983b, 1985). In particular, Krashen’s (1982, 1985) Input Hypothesis posited that learners’ access to input that is somewhat above their current L2 levels is a prerequisite for their gains in the target language, and a variety of linguistic (for example, the use of simplified lexical and syntactic structures) and non-linguistic (for example, the reliance on contextual information) measures can be taken in order to aid in learner comprehension of such input. Long (1983b), agreeing with Krashen, described comprehensible input as the incoming messages that include “forms (lexis, morphology, syntactic constructions) that are one stage beyond the learner’s current stage of interlanguage development” (p. 377). However, unlike Krashen, he contended in the early version of his Interaction Hypothesis that comprehensible input could be achieved in interactive situations through NSs’ interactional adjustments to

NNSs. Nevertheless, both researchers conceded that comprehensible input serves as the positive evidence of L2, that is, “models of what is grammatical and acceptable” (Long, 1996, p. 413), and is both a necessary and sufficient condition for SLA.

This emphasis on the primacy of comprehensible input in assisting L2 growth soon met with many challenges, most of which centered on its lack of concern for learners’ role in comprehending linguistic input (Gass, 1988, 1997), the insufficiency of comprehensible input for the achievement of native-like fluency (Swain, 1985), and the negative effects it might have on learners’ attentional capacity (Faerch & Kasper, 1986). In face of these challenges, Long (1996), in his updated Interaction Hypothesis,

acknowledged the contributions of learners’ attention to L2 forms to SLA by positing that, “negotiation of meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional

adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways” (p. 451- 452). It is now widely accepted that comprehensible input is “necessary but not sufficient for L2 development” (Yilmaz, 2011, p. 116), and the focus of research concerning input and SLA has thus shifted from the quality, or more

specifically the comprehensibility of input, to how learners’ focus on form is achieved during dyadic interaction.

Focus on form, as Long and Robinson (1998) describes it, refers to “how focal attentional resources are allocated” (p. 23), and according to Doughty and Williams (1998), there are two definitions of focus on form, one being more theoretical and the other being operational. The theoretical definition stated that “Focus on form…overtly draw[s] students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons

whose overriding focus is on meaning, or communication” (Long, 1991, p. 45-46). The operational definition, on the other hand, assumed that “Focus on form often consists of an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features – by the teacher and/or one or more students – triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production” (Long & Robinson, 1998, p. 23).

These two definitions together identified two features that are highly indicative of focus on form. First of all, they conveyed the idea that focus on form is a balance of focus on forms and focus on meaning. Focus on forms indicates “a predominant, often

exclusive, orientation to a series of isolated linguistic forms presented one after the other, as in a structural syllabus, with meaning and communication relegated to the sidelines” (Long, 1996, p. 429); focus on meaning, on the contrary, is associated with

comprehensible input maintaining that learners’ comprehension of input, without instruction on L2 forms, is sufficient for SLA. While learners’ attention to the formal aspect of the target language does not seem to co-exist with their attention to the content of the message in either focus on forms or focus on meaning, their co-occurrence is clearly recognized in focus on form, for “the fundamental assumption of focus-on-form instruction is that meaning and use must already be evident to the learner at the time that attention is drawn to the linguistic apparatus needed to get the meaning across” (Doughty & Williams, 1998, p. 4). In acknowledging that learners’ attentional resources can be allocated simultaneously to the form and the meaning of input, focus on form transcends focus on forms and focus on meaning in that “focus on form entails a focus on formal elements of language, whereas focus on forms is limited to such a focus, and focus on meaning excludes it” (ibid).

In addition, the claim that focus on form is mainly caused by comprehension problems arising from dyadic interaction suggests the relevance of examining its

operationalization in relation to negotiation of meaning. Long (1996) defined negotiation of meaning as “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). Pica (1994) described negotiation of meaning in more detail as the interactional exchanges in which “a listener requests message clarification and confirmation and a speaker follows up these requests, often through repeating, elaborating, or simplifying the original message” (p. 497). Gass and Varonis (1985) and Varonis and Gass (1985) further specified the structure of the negotiation of meaning routines as being comprised of a trigger, an indicator, a response, and an optional reaction to response.

It has been argued that while engaging in negotiation of meaning, not only do learners receive interactionally modified and thus comprehensible input, but they also attend to the formal properties of their utterances through their interlocutors’ corrective feedback such as recast (Long, 1996), confirmation check (Young & Doughty, 1987) and repetition (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Since corrective feedback “preserve[s] the learner’s intended meaning” (Long & Robinson, 1998, p. 23), it provides learners with either explicit or implicit negative evidence (as opposed to positive evidence in comprehensible input) with regard to the problematic areas in their interlanguage, and thus directs their attention to the L2 forms they need to express their intended meanings. The effectiveness of focus on form during negotiated interaction was soon confirmed in a number of studies

showing a positive relationship between negotiation of meaning and L2 gains (e.g., Ellis & He, 1999; Ellis, Tanaka, & Yamazaki, 1994; Gass, Mackey, & Pica, 1998; Gass & Varonis, 1994; Mackey, 1999), and at the same time, communication tasks that involve information gap in input such as jigsaw tasks were purported to promote focus on form and consequently SLA through negotiation of meaning during dyadic interaction (Pica et al., 1993).

Another key concept associated with focus on form relates to the importance of noticing to SLA. Schmidt (1990, 1994, 2001) described the construct of noticing in his Noticing Hypothesis as learners’ conscious attention and awareness to input, and he connected noticing to focus on form evidenced in negotiation of meaning through noticing the gap (Schmidt & Frota, 1986), the interactional modifications that “draw the learners’ conscious attention to the linguistic properties of the input and how these differ from the properties of the learners’ output” (Ellis, 2003, p. 48). Schmidt (1994) asserted that noticing the gap is “the necessary and sufficient condition for the conversion of input to intake for learning” (p. 17), and his claim about the importance of noticing to L2 learning, that is, “people learn about the things they attend to and do not learn much about the things they do not attend to”(Schmidt, 2001, p. 30) was also corroborated by Long and Robinson (1998), who claimed that noticing is “the intended outcome of focus on form” (p. 24).