|
part of the learner. For instance, in a comparative study on the effects of in-
put modifications and of interactional modifications, Pica et al. (1987)
found that comprehension was assisted by the interactional modifications,
and that input modifications, even with reduced linguistic complexity, had
no such effect.
One does not have to look far to see the reasons for this. Input modifica-
tions, though crucial, do not by themselves offer opportunities for interac-
tion. They may make some of the structural–semantic features salient, but
they do not make structural–semantic relationships transparent. In other
words, input modifications may provide potentially acceptable input; but,
they do not help learners learn the relationship between form and mean-
ing in order to develop the necessary knowledge/ability to convey their in-
tended meaning in an interactive speech event. It is the learner’s inter-
actional efforts that make form-meaning relationships in the TL data
acceptable and internalizable. As Allwright and Bailey (1991) pointed out,
“it is the work required to negotiate that spurs language acquisition, rather
than the intended outcome of the work—comprehensible input” (p. 123).
Interactional modifications help learners focus on the meaningful use of
particular linguistic features, and practice the productive use of those fea-
68
CHAPTER 3
tures. They help learners stretch their limited linguistic repertoire, thereby
resulting in opportunities for further L2 development (for more details,
see Gass, 1997).
Although classroom interaction by definition includes learner produc-
tion, the role of learner output in L2 development was not given any seri-
ous consideration for a long time. The scope of interaction as a linguistic
activity has now been extended to include the effect of learner output, par-
ticularly after the emergence of two output-related hypotheses: the compre-
hensible output hypothesis (Swain, 1985) and the auto-input hypothesis
(Schmidt & Frota, 1986). Both these hypotheses emphasize the role played
by the learner’s output in shaping L2 development. They highlight the im-
portance of learner output produced in the process of meaningful interac-
tion as it provides the learner with the opportunity to form and test initial
hypotheses, and the opportunity to pay particular attention to the linguistic
means of communicative expression. A study by Pica, Holliday, Lewis, and
Morgenthaler (1989) found that comprehensible output was an outcome
of linguistic demands placed on the learner in the course of interaction.
Further research by Swain (1995) and others has confirmed the impor-
tance of output.
The precise role of interactional modifications in general has not been
sufficiently investigated (see Gass, 2003, for a recent review). However,
there seems to be a consensus among researchers that L2 learning environ-
ment must include opportunities for learners to engage in meaningful in-
teraction with competent speakers of their L2 if they are to discover the for-
mal and functional rules necessary for comprehension and production. As
the studies cited earlier show, what enables learners to move beyond their
current receptive and productive capacities when they need to understand
unfamiliar language input or when required to produce a comprehensible
message are opportunities to modify and restructure their interaction with
their interlocutors until mutual comprehension is reached.
That meaningful interaction is crucial for L2 development has been
widely recognized. There has not been adequate recognition, however, that
providing interactional opportunities means much more than providing
opportunities for an explicit focus on linguistic features or for a possible
form-meaning relationships embedded in the input data. Studies that ap-
proach interaction primarily as a textual activity can offer only a limited
perspective on the role of interaction in L2 development, for they treat
interactional modifications as no more than conversational adjustments.
Clearly, interaction is much broader a construct than that. It entails, mini-
mally, a spectrum of linguistic, social, and cultural constructs that create
the very context of language communication. Therefore, in order to facili-
tate an effective interplay of various intake factors and intake processes dis-
cussed in the previous chapter, we may have to go beyond the narrow con-
TEACHING: INPUT AND INTERACTION
69
fines of interaction as a textual activity, and consider the role of interaction
as an interpersonal activity and also interaction as an ideational activity,
among other yet unknown possibilities.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
