Rearch on Student Interaction and Second Language Acquisition Previous rearch and theory suggests that student-to-student language experiences facilitate cond language learning. By talking with others, cond language learners:
第一届政协会议
•engage in turn-taking which enables further negotiation of language structure (Boxer, 1993)
•clarify the meaning of new words and grammatical structures they hear
•try out new and previously taught vocabulary and structures in conversation,
•receive feedback from their conversational partner on parts of their speech that were incomprehensible,
•notice their errors, and
•rephra or recast their statements to clarify the meaning for their partner.
All of the activities are considered helpful to cond language learning.
History of interest in Student Interaction
松尾芭蕉经典俳句性的功能
Even before the 1970s, conversational practice was considered to be helpful in providing practice with and reinforcement of vocabulary and grammatical structures that the teacher had previously explained. Rearch beginning in the mid-1970s (Wagner-Gough and Hatch, 1975; Hatch, 1978; Hatch and Wagner-Gough, 1976) showed how learners’ participation in conversational interaction provided them with opportunities to hear and produce the cond language in ways that went beyond mere practice of previously instructed material (Gass, Mackey, and Pica 1998). Various rearch since then has expanded and deepened this line of inquiry, teasing out the ways in which student-to-student conversational interaction facilitates their cond language development.
朱赫来Comprehensible Input
•Students improve their comprehension by asking their conversation partner to clarify things that they don’t understand. This allows the learner to receive “comprehensible
input,” a necessary first step for cond language learning.
If a cond language learner does not understand something either in the oral or written instructions for a teacher-assigned pair work task, the learner usually asks his or her partner for clarification. In this way, learners get “comprehensible input” on the task to be done and/or the language needed to
complete the task. Comprehensible input, originally claimed by Stephen Krashen to be all that was needed for language learning to take place, is now en as necessary but not by itlf sufficient. Later rearch, such as Sato (1986), has shown that is it quite possible for learners to understand the input they receive without improving their own speaking or “output.” Rearchers discovered that the role of interaction was more complex than they had originally thought.
Comprehensible Output or Pushed Output
•In conversation, learners must try to say something that their partner will understand. This “pushes” learners to test their cond language pronunciation, vocabulary, word order, and other grammar and structures to try to produce “comprehensible output.”
Swain (1985) argued that through conversational interaction, learner participants are “pushed” to try to produce “comprehensible output,” or language that their partner can understand. This requires much more of the learner than merely comprehending what was heard, which does not always require a complete understanding of the vocabulary, grammar or word order of the message heard. To provide comprehensible output, the learner must organize and u grammar and vocabulary—and especially syntax or word order—to communicate their meaning. Becau participation in conve
rsational interaction forces or “pushes” the learner to attempt comprehensible output, Swain later called this process “pushed output.”
Negative Feedback and “Noticing”
•When learners are not understood, their partners ask them questions. This helps learners e or “notice” what they need to change (and ideally learn) to communicate more clearly. Rearch following up on the role of comprehensible output in cond language acquisition has looked at the specific interaction or “negotiation” around learner output. Schmidt (1994) and Tomlin and Villa (1994) for example, have looked at the role of negative feedback that learners receive from their conversation partners and how that feedback helps them to “notice” their errors. When cond language learners try to produce comprehensible output, they inevitably make mistakes that cau their partners not to fully understand their message. When the partner provides information that the message was not understood, this provides “negative feedback” to the language learner. Sometimes this feedback is very general, such as a question like “what?” or “Huh?” At other times, the listener identifies that word or phra that was not understood. This negative feedback focus the learners’ attention on some part of their cond language u that is not sufficiently proficient to be understood. In this way, they notice that they are mispronouncing a word, using the incorrect ver
b form, or syntax, etc. Noticing what they are having problems with in communication is esntial to improving their cond language output. Rephrasing, Recasting, Repair
•When a misunderstanding occurs between learners, the learners try to correct or repair (Wong, 2000) the cau of the misunderstanding. This may take veral attempts.
Students tend to improve their cond language “output” through the repeated attempts. Second language learners respond to negative feedback by trying to correct the misunderstood part of their speech—their pronunciation of a word, the word choice, syntax, verb form, etc.—so that their partner will understand their message. Rearch has shown that this recasting has at least short-term benefits in the learner’s cond language production (Holliday, 1995; Linnell, 1995; Pica, 1994, 1996), and many rearchers theorize that it may have longer term benefits, too (Noyuyoshi and Ellis, 1993, LaPierre, 1994; Donato, 1994).
Interaction Facilitates Second Language Learning
Rearchers caution that it is not possible to claim that interaction “caus” cond language learning. The process is much too complex to reduce it to a single cau. They do believe that interaction and the negotiation of meaning and form that happens during interaction facilitates or hel
ps students to learn a cond language.
This summary was compiled by Reuel Kurzet. To read the more detailed history of interaction and cond language acquisition from which this summary is drawn, and for a fairly complete bibliography on the subject, e Gass, Mackey, & Pica (1998).
References:
Boxer, D. (1993). Complaints as positive strategies: What the learner needs to know. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 277-299.右手臂有痣
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in cond language learning. In J. Lantolf & G.
Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to cond language rearch (pp. 33-56).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in cond language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 299-307.跑步呼吸正确方法
Hatch, E. (1978). Acquisition of syntax in a cond language. In J. Richards (Ed.), Understanding cond and foreign language learning (pp. 34-70). Rowley, MA:
Newbury Hou.
Hatch, E., & Wagner-Gough, J. (1976). Explaining quence and variation in cond language acquisition. Language Learning, 4, 39-47.
Holliday, L. (1995). NS syntactic modification in NS-NNS negotiations as input data for cond language acquisition of syntax. Unpublished doctoral disrtation, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
LaPierre, D. (1994). Language output in a cooperative learning tting: Determining its effects on cond language learning. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Toronto
(OISE), Toronto, Canada.
Linnell, J. (1995). Negotiation as a context for learning syntax in a cond language.
Unpublished doctoral disrtation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focud communication tasks and cond language acquisition. English Language Teaching Journal, 47, 203-210.
Pica, T. (1994). Rearch on negotiation: What does it reveal about cond language learning conditions, process, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527.
Pica, T. (1996). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12, 1-22.
Sato, C. J. (1986). Conversation and interlanguage development: Rethinking the connection. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in cond language acquisition (pp. 5-
22), Rowley, MA: Newbury Hou.
体育场馆管理Schmidt, R. W. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in arch of uful definitions for applied linguistics, AILA Review, 11, 11-26.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input
in cond language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury Hou. Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and cond language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-204.
绝句漫兴Wagner-Gough, J., & Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input data in cond language acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25, 297-307.
Wong, J. (2000). Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker English conversation. Applied Linguistics, 21 (1), 244-267.
