1. The Role of the Linguistic
Environment in SLA
(Long, 1996; Swain, 2005, Ortega, 2009)
2. Y'all remember 'Wes'
• Awareness of the linguistic environment is key to acquisition.
"I’m never learning, I only just listen then, then
talk.” (Schmidt, p. 168)
• Grammar acquisition cannot happen unless one makes a
conscious effort.
• Schmidt’s research with Wes enabled him to conclude that
noticing is the fifth ingredient for successful SLA along with
attitude, input, interaction, and output.
3. The 5 Ingredients
Attitude
• Schumann’s acculturation
model
• In light of Wes’ study, Schumann’s modified this
model to include noticing.
Input
• Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis –
grammar learning will naturally occur when
learners are exposed to content that is
personally relevant and understandable.
• Evidence of the gap between comprehension
and acquisition calls for more research on this
in the future.
4. The 5 Ingredients
Interaction
• The best comprehensible input comes in the form
of interaction (Long, 1996).
o Interlocutors can negotiate for meaning,
modifying their interaction for comprehension.
clarification requests
confirmation checks
comprehension checks
o Long believes interactionally modified input
tailor-made for the learner is the most effective.
o Studies have shown that interaction leads to
better comprehension and incorporation of
input from interlocutors (Loschky, 1994, Gass,
1994)
5. The 5 Ingredients
Output
• Comprehensible Output Hypothesis - ‘producing the target
language may be the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention
to the means of expression’ (Swain, 1985)
o Study of English L1 children French L2 immersion school
Like Wes, oral discourse competence was strong but
grammatical & sociolinguistic competence was weak due to
lack of chances to speak and write in L2
• Learning may be increased by handling complex language beyond
current ability
o Pushed Output Hypothesis - "O+1"
6. The 5 Ingredients
Noticing
• Learners need to notice that there
is something new in the linguistic environment.
• Learning directly relates to noticing: the more learners
notice, the more they learn (Schmidt, 2001)
o Internally driven – learners may notice the gap between
what they are able to express and what they want to express in
their L2.
o Externally driven – learners may notice the gap between
their language and that of their interlocutors, or through explicit
instruction from a teacher.
7. The output Hypothesis: Theory and
Research
Swain (2005)
• Output as product or Output as process
• The Output hypothesis claims that the act
of producing language (speaking or
writing) constitutes, under certain
circumstances, part of the process of
second language learning.
8. The Output Hypothesis: Theory and
Research
Swain (2005)
• Context in which the Output Hypothesis was
formulated:
1. Information-processing theory (input-output)
• i + 1; comprehensible input .(Krashen, 1982, 1985)
• Certain discourse moves such as clarification and
comprehension checks served to make input more
comprehensible. (Long, 1983, 1985)
• We acquire language in only one way: when we
understand messages in that language, when we
receive comprehensible input. (Krashen, 1984)
2. French immersion programs in Canada
• Pushed output; comprehensible output; negotiating
meaning.
9. The output Hypothesis: Theory and
Research
Swain (2005)
Three Functions of Output
1. The Noticing/Triggering Function
• Learners may notice that they do not know how
to say (or write) precisely the meaning they wish
to convey.
• Output triggered deeper and more elaborate
processing of the form, which led learners to
establish a more durable memory trace. (Izumi,
2002, p.570)
10. The output Hypothesis: Theory and
Research
Swain (2005)
Three Functions of Output
2. The Hypothesis Testing function
• Output may sometimes be, from the learner’s
perspective, a “trial run” reflecting their
hypothesis of how to say (or write) their intent.
• Students were more likely to modify their output,
and do so successfully, when they were pushed
to do so. (Loewen, 2002)
11. The output Hypothesis: Theory and
Research
Swain (2005)
Three Functions of Output
3. The Metalinguistic (Reflective) Function
• Using language to reflect on language produced
by others or the self. Mediates second language
learning.
• An individual’s physical and cognitive behavior is
initially regulated by others.
• Solo mental function
Students work
together
Mediate problemdialogue
Collaborative solution
12. Output modification
Output modification
• Brenden (1997) study on Dutch L2 speakers showed that
learners modified their output in response to negotiation from their
interlocutors, and that negotiation facilitates more productive
output
• Shehadeh (1999) found that output modification occurs more
frequently in self-initiated repair than other-initiated repair.
• Izumi (2003) argues that learners can modify their output only
in meaningful, not mechanical language use.
• Much more research still needs to be done on the effects of
output on acquisition.
13. Possible Roles for the
Environment
• Positive evidence
• Negative evidence
• Direct or Indirect
• Explicit or Implicit
14. Negotiation for Meaning
• The contribution of the learning environment
depends on the learner paying attention and their
ability to comprehend available input
• How do NSs try to make their meaning clear?
15. Foreigner Talk and Positive
Evidence
• How do we make input
comprehensible?
• What is FT vs.
“Foreigner register”?
• Mostly grammatical,
slower and clearer
• Usually simpler in the
written form and
sometimes more
elaborate orally
16. Devices in the Negotiation
Process
• Repetitions
• Confirmations
• Reformulations
• Comprehension checks
• Confirmation checks
• Clarification
17. Does FT Work?
• “input must be comprehensible for
acquisition to occur, and there is some
evidence that global linguistic and
conversational adjustments to NNSs
improve comprehensibility”
19. Input and Cognitive Processing
• Attention, awareness and noticing
• “Input enhancement”
• Focus on form and meaning in context
20. Negative Evidence in L1
Acquisition
• Does it exist?
• Is it in usable form?
• Is it used?
• Is it necessary?
• The French Example
21. Negative Evidence in L2 Acquisition I.
-Scope of research
-Is negative feedback
effective?
-What does the research
indicate?
-How is it provided?
22. Negative Evidence in L2 Acquisition II.
Alternative Taxonomy System?
-Different taxonomy system?
-explicitness
(Ellis and Sheen, 2006)
-demand
(Lyster, 2004)
-informativeness
23. Negative Evidence in L2 Acquisition III.
Effectiveness Revisited
-Importance of context
-Communicative-based lessons
vs. content-based lessons
-Discourse and pedagogical
context
24. The Limits of the Linguistic Environment
• Conversational tasks may exhibit lower levels of negotiation
than information gap tasks, but encourage more personal
engagement and risk-taking.
• Learners may feign understanding to save face and avoid
lengthy negotiations
• Attitudinal and affective factors can hinder negotiation
• Communication style varies with individuals
• Native-speaker prejudice towards L2 learners can treat all
utterances as problematic
• L2 learners may feel that native speakers have a
responsibility to understand their interlanguage
25. Pedagogical Implications
• Teachers should be aware not simply of what’s out there in
the linguistic environment, but how learners process that
data and live and experience that environment.