Michael Long's Interactional Hypothesis

1. 1 Royal University of Phnom Penh Institute of Foreign Languages Department of English INTERACTIONAL HYPOTHESIS (Michael H. Long) Applied Linguistics 401 Course lecturer: Mr. MEAS Sopheak Group: 12 Mr. BUT Boreth Mr. CHEA Piseth Class: E4.5 Year 2010-2011

2. 2 OUTLINE I. Introduction - Krashen’s input hypothesis - Long’sinteractionalhypothesis - Definition II. Howdoesthetheorywork? III. Limitationof Interactional Hypothesis Perspective IV. Conclusion

3. 3 I. Introduction Recall Stephen D. Krashen - Krashen’s Input Hypothesis: Second language input must both be: - Comprehended - be at one stage above the learner’s current level (i+1) in order to be acquired (Krashen, 1985).

5. Focus on modified input

6. Modified input  Negotiated interaction  Communicating

7. 5 I. Introduction (Con’t) Definition: Interactional hypothesis referred to when learners engaged with their interlocutors in negotiations around meaning, the nature of the input might be qualitatively changed. (Long 1981, 1983a, 1996)

8. 6 II. Howdoesthetheorywork? Interactional Hypothesis Modified Interaction Conversational Adjustment Comprehension of input Language acquisition

9. 7 II. Howdoesthetheorywork? (Con’t) Types of modified input: Pre-modified input: when the speech of NS is characterized with decreased complexity, but increased length and redundancy like foreigner talk. Interactionallymodified input: NS provides opportunities for NS-NNS interaction.

10. 8 II. Howdoesthetheorywork? (Con’t) - Language users  struggle to maximize comprehension - The more adjustment within interaction  The more input becomes comprehensible - Facilitation of comprehension by input modification (to overwhelm some communicative difficulties) : Repetition: - You said..... - Toputitdifferentlyor in anotherway, ..... - In other words.....

11. 9 II. Howdoesthetheorywork? (Con’t) (ii) Confirmation Checks: NNS*: what are they (.) what do they do your picture? NS**: what are they doing in my picture? NS: there's there's just a couple more things NNS: a sorry? Couple? NNS*: Non-Native Speaker NS**: Native Speaker

12. 10 II. Howdoesthetheorywork? (Con’t) (iii) Comprehension Checks: Do youunderstand? Isthisclear? Do youseethat...? (iv) Clarification Request: Could you say that again? Could you elaborate? What do you mean by this...?

13. 11 III. Limitation of IH Perspective 1 interaction facilitates comprehension (not cause it) when learners have opportunity to signal their non-understanding and try to ask for clarification (Ellis, 1999)

14. 12 III. Limitation of IH Perspective (Con’t) 2 comprehension does not depend on negotiation. Learners may benefit from the dialogic interaction by other learners (Ellis, 1999)

15. 13 III. Limitation of IH Perspective (Con’t) 3 the most important factor to acquisition of word meaning is range (different contexts). (Ellis, 1999) 4 Input and interaction alone are not enough to learn a target language 5 Individual differences have been neglected (Ellis, 1999, & Ziglari, 2008)

16. 14 III. Limitation of IH Perspective (Con’t) 6 Interactional hypothesis has an atomistic(1) aspect, while language is, in fact, holistic(2) and dynamic. (Ellis, 1999, & Van Lier, 2004) modified input just facilitates acquisition of word meanings not the whole utterance (1) atomistic: Consisting of many separate, often disparate elements (2) holistic: Concerned with wholes rather than analysis or separation into parts

18. IH ideas are easily translatable into language classes.- IH in class  the class would be enjoyable, creative and initiative.

19. 16 Thanks for your attention Q&A

20. References 17 Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course.Rouledge-Taylor & Francis: New York. Krashen, S. (1983). Newmark’s “Ignorance Hypothesis” and current second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning , pp.135-153. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Long, M. 1981: Input, interaction, and second language acquisition . Foreign Language Acquisition: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , (379) , 259 78. Long, M. 1983: Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers . Studies in Second Language Acquisition , (5) , 177 93. Long, M.H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition, pp. 377-393. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Long, M. 1996: The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition . In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press , 413 68. Mitchell, R. ,& Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories (Second Edition). Hodder Arnold: UK. Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Xu, F. (2010). The Role of Input and Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Cross-Cultural Communication. Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 11-17. Canada. Ziglari, L. (2008). The Role of Interaction in L2 Acquisition: An Emergentist Perspective. European Journal of Scientific Research. Vol.23 No.3, pp.446-453.