Chapter 5

CW5.2 Interaction versus input

The Interaction Hypothesis stimulated a number of research projects looking at interactional modifications. A well-known study is reported in Pica et al. (1987). It involves NS–NNS pairs, native speakers of English directing non-native speakers on how to do a task (one which involved placing items on a small board showing an outdoor scene). In half the pairs, the NSs were asked to modify their input, but no interaction was allowed (this was called Condition 1). The other half did not modify input, but NfM through interactions was allowed (called Condition 2). After the task had been done, the NNSs were given a comprehension test, and it was revealed that the Condition 2 pairs showed far greater comprehension (sometimes as much as three times better), suggesting an important role for interaction and NfM.

The researchers then looked in detail at the language used in the task, in three ways: in terms of its complexity, its quantity and its redundancy (how much repetition there was). They found little difference in complexity between the input the three groups received. Quantity was useful in Condition 2 when difficulties were met (and NfM was therefore necessary). Often the quantity was increased to allow repetitions to be made.

There are some interesting possible implications in this (and similar) studies for teaching. As the researchers note, teachers and textbooks often try to make input more comprehensible by simplifying language content and providing less of it (‘shortening’ it). This research suggests that avoiding complexity is not necessarily important and also that learners may need an increase rather than a decrease in input to make something clear. ‘Should texts be simplified for language teaching purposes or not?’ has long been an issue in language teaching. Simplified texts are not ‘natural’ or ‘authentic’, and different approaches to language teaching give different degrees of importance to authenticity. In fact, in section 9.2 authenticity is identified as one of the ways of distinguishing different teaching methods.

The research also suggests that there is an important role for interaction between NSs and NNSs. Think about the implications for teaching of the following statement, at the end of Pica et al.’s(1987) paper: ‘if oral interaction between students and teacher is encouraged, even ungraded syllabuses and materials may provide input that will become comprehensible’ (p. 755). What is meant by ‘ungraded syllabuses’? Put what is being claimed here into your own words. What is its significance for teaching?

CW5.3 Fish, chips and feedback

Vigil and Oller (1976) develop what they call the feedback model of fossilization. This argues that whether or not a form fossilizes will depend on the reaction the speaker receives when using it: ‘any forms’, they say, ‘that elicit favourable feedback will tend to fossilize’. The listener reaction of I understand will, in other words, lead to fossilization, while the reaction I don’t understand will lead to change or improvement. The principle is clear: learners who are managing to have their needs met by an imperfect ‘pidgin-like’ form have no motivation to improve.

Selinker and Lamendella (1978) bitterly attack this position. The main objection relates to L1 acquisition and the fact that L1 children do not fossilize the pidgin-like forms they develop in the process of acquisition, even though caretakers in general both understand what their children are saying and indicate that understanding to the child.

What does 'pidgin-like' actually mean? A pidgin language is one which has been developed to meet the communication needs of two groups speaking different L1s. For example, when Britain colonized parts of West Africa (Nigeria, for example), a means of communication between colonizers and colonized was required, and the result was English-based pidgin languages. Pidgins are examples of simplified codes. The title of Schumann’s 1978 book, The Pidginization Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition,suggests that it is possible to draw parallels between these two simplified codes – pidgin languages and the output of second-language learners.

CW5.4 The acculturation model

Schumann describes his acculturation model in his 1978 book. According to him, when learners are using their FL for simple communicative purposes, early fossilization is likely to occur. Where, on the other hand, the learner wishes in some way to integrate with speakers of the FL – to be considered as one of them (the integrative function) – then there is a motivation for fossilized forms to be replaced by the standard ones. Schumann uses the term acculturate (meaning to ‘become a part of a culture’) to express his central idea, and his theory is referred to as the acculturation model. The idea is that the occurrence or otherwise of fossilization will depend on the degree to which the learner wishes to acculturate to the FL language and society. Schumann draws up a list of the factors which will enable us to predict whether fossilization will occur in the language of a particular learner or group of learners. The details are not important here, but by way of illustration we will look briefly at one of the factors he considers: ‘degree of enclosure’. When some individuals come to live in a target language country, they may (by circumstances or choice) live together with other immigrants who speak the same L1. Little surprise, then, that they speak their L1 in their spare time, and they may make little progress in FL learning. Other individuals may have much less of a degree of enclosure. In fact, this factor is one which separated Alberto (the fossilized, putting-no-in-the-sentence man) from the other five subjects in Cancino et al.'s (1978) study, whose negatives developed. The other five were upper-middle-class professional immigrants living, mixing and socializing with similar professionals regardless of racial origin – having, in other words, a low degree of enclosure. Alberto was a working-class immigrant with a high degree of enclosure; he lived (and socialized) with other Spanish-speaking factory workers. Alberto lived in a street full of Spanish-speakers; the other five lived in streets full of doctors and engineers.