FP001 - Approaches to Language in the

Classroom Context
Aim of the subject

This subject has a very detailed and specific topic to deal with: that of the
language produced by and for learners in the classroom. This is obviously
an extremely important -in fact, probably the most important - area in SLA
research.

The subjects Second Language Acquisition and Methodological

Approaches provided an overview of language teaching by looking at its
theory and practice. Now that you have a fair amount of general knowledge
about this, this subject looks more closely at some of the theories outlined
in the subject Second Language Acquisition, and, as such, is closely linked
to it: at many points you may find yourself referring back to refresh your
memory about certain SLA theories.

The main focus in this subject will be to give an overview of how ideas
about the learner's interlanguage have developed, what it is, how it is
formed, what influences it, and so on. Our concern will be to trace the
influence of these ideas on classroom practice and to extract pointers for
the future of instructed second language acquisition.

Chapter 1 looks at the characteristics of interlanguage, at the social and

psycholinguistic processes which affect interlanguage, and at the
phenomenon of fossilization.

Chapter 2 continues to look at how learners' interlanguages develop, but

here the focus is on developments in the role of conscious learning in SLA.
We will be examining terms such as noticing and restructuring, which
are key concepts in any consideration of what interlanguage is. We will see,
for example, how research into cognitive accounts of SLA and especially
into consciousness learning has moved SLA beyond considerations such
as Krashen's learning/acquisition distinction, which argued for the
essentially subconscious nature of SLA. Most importantly, we will be asking

1
ourselves how these theoretical developments affect us as classroom
teachers, that is, what the implications are for our practice in the classroom.

The final chapter of this subject will look at the research on the language
that learners are exposed to (input) and how this, and the language they
produce (output), affect language acquisition, and what implications this
has for classroom based SLA.

We will be referring to a range of learning contexts throughout the subject.

Much of the learner language and input theory was developed in ESL
contexts, and we will aim to extend this and relate it to other contexts that
English is being learnt in, including our own EFL and CLIL classrooms and
multilingual and monolingual settings.

2
Chapter 1.- Interlanguage

1.1. Introduction
What learners actually say has been fundamental in forming theories about
learning and teaching. After all, what students produce (in writing or
speaking) is the only evidence we have that our students are learning
anything. In this chapter we will be exploring some of the theoretical strands
which have influenced current thinking on learner language, known since
the 1970s as interlanguage. This section will give you an overview of the
gradual development of knowledge about interlanguage, and a feel for the
complexity of the issues surrounding the analysis of interlanguage.

What did theorists initially focus on when forming theories of why students
speak the way they do when they learn learning a language?

1.2. Early second language acquisition

research
The foundations for the development of a theory which explains the
processes that take place when an individual learns a foreign language
have their empirical base in the only two pieces of visible data that linguists
and psychologists have: on the one hand, the general linguistic system of
a language (i.e. the L2 itself), and, on the other hand, the learner's specific
language performance. (i.e. what learners say).

In the subject Second Language Acquisition we saw that theorists initially

focused on the general linguistic systems of languages. This involved
linguists examining the target language and contrasting it with the mother
tongue, which gave rise to the term contrastive analysis (CA).

The second source of data which linguists have at their disposal is that of
an individual's specific language performance, in all its idiosyncratic
complexity. Thus, although contrastive analysis can be considered to have
a certain value as an "objective" scientific instrument in the study of two
languages, its validity is a little doubtful when the aim is the learning of a

3
foreign language, because the language used by any one individual learner
is so idiosyncratic. In other words, learners who share the same mother
tongue simply do not speak the L2 in exactly the same way: there are many
deviant (incorrect) forms used by learners that contrastive analysis can
neither predict nor explain.

These deviant forms have been traditionally studied from a linguistic point
of view, giving birth to the field of error analysis (EA). Before proceeding
with this chapter on interlanguage you may wish to remind yourself of some
of the main issues in the field by referring back to the subject Second
Language Acquisition.

1.3. Interlanguage
We will now turn to a consideration of the phenomenon of interlanguage, a
term which you have already come across in the subject Second Language
Acquisition. As we saw in that subject, the theory of interlanguage has had
a profound effect on the way we perceive not only the language which
learners produce, but also the way in which the learning process itself is
now viewed. We have seen that the behaviourist view of language as habit
formation gave way in the 1960s to a mentalist, psycholinguistic model of
language as an innate, creative, rule-governed process. This in turn led to
the idea that a learner's developing language is in fact systematic with its
own internal logic and "rules".

Early theories all refer to the same phenomenon: the existence of a

"special" language, created by the individual, and standing midway
between the mother tongue and the target language. This phenomenon
can be represented graphically as follows:

Figure 1.1: The existence of a language between the target language and the mother tongue.

4
Reflective task 1.1.

Look at the diagram above (figure 1.1). What do you think the symbols LM,
LX and LE stand for?

To see the comments on this task you will find the "Assessment" section
of the subject (virtual campus).

In early models, this "special" language, which is continually evolving, was

called by Nemser (1971) an approximative system. Corder (1967)
concluded that the language produced by the individual who learns an L2
may be seen as a new system with its own specific grammar. This grammar
has several rules which are also present in the target language. In Corder´s
view (ibid.) the individual's L2 production is in fact a "dialect" and can be
represented graphically as follows:

Figure 1.2: Languages A and B are in a dialect relationship.

Font: based on Corder. (1967).

However, the individual learner's language is considered to be a dialect

which is highly "idiosyncratic", as it has marked individual features that
define it in opposition to the generally understood meaning of
dialect. Dialect is described in the Longman Dictionary of Language
Teaching & Applied Linguistics (1992: 107) as:

A variety of language spoken in one part of a country (regional dialect), or

by people belonging to a particular social class (social dialect or
SOCIOLECT), which is different in some words, grammar, and/or
pronunciation from other forms of the same language.
A dialect is often associated with a particular ACCENT. Sometimes a
dialect gains status and becomes the STANDARD VARIETY of a country.

So we might say that the description of the learner's language as a dialect

was an attempt to capture the idea of two essential elements - its non-

5
standard and its hybrid nature. Corder (1967) also used the term
"transitional competence" to emphasise that this "dialect" is in a state of
continuous development.

The American linguist Larry Selinker (1972) coined the

term interlanguage; this was to become the most common term used to
describe the language system that results from language learning. Ellis
suggested that the term interlanguage:

... has come to be used with different but related meanings:

1. to refer to the series of interlocking systems which characterize

acquisition,

2. to refer to the system that is observed at a single stage of development

('an interlanguage'), and

3. to refer to particular L1/L2 combinations (for example, L1 french/L2

english v. L1 japanese/L2 english).

(1994: 710)

In the next part of this chapter we will look at interlanguage (hereafter IL)
in greater detail.

1.4. The general characteristics of

interlanguage
Long (1990) suggested that ILs are the "psycholinguistic SL equivalents of
idiolects", where idiolect may be understood to mean:

The language system of an individual as expressed by the way he or she

speaks or writes within the overall system of a particular language.
(Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguists, 1992:
172)
Long (1990: 658)

ILs are also both variable and systematic. That is, they are unstable and
dynamic while simultaneously exhibiting features which show that they are
rule-based. This second feature, in Long's view, includes:

6
The regular suppliance and nonsuppliance of both targetlike and non-
targetlike features in certain linguistic contexts and in the persistence of the
same errors for often quite lengthy periods.
(1990: 658).

Larsen-Freeman (1991) suggested that, while early SLA research was

concerned with IL systematicity, synchronic variability (that is, variability
at a single point in time as opposed to variability over a period of time) was
so clearly a feature of IL that it had to be addressed. Apart from varying
degrees of attention to form, suggested by Tarone (1979), Larsen-Freeman
(ibid.: 322) offered the following list of possible explanations for IL
variability:

1. Learners' monitoring their performance (Krashen 1977).

2. Sociolinguistic factors (Beebe 1980).

3. Adjustment of one's speech towards one's interlocutor (convergence) or

away from one's interlocutor (divergence) (Beebe & Zuengler 1983).

4. Linguistic or situational context of use (Ellis 1985).

5. Discourse domains (Selinker & Douglas 1985).

6. The amount of planning time learners have (Crookes 1989).

7. A combination of factors: stage of acquisition, linguistic environment,

communicative redundancy (Young 1988).

8. Learners' use of other-regulated or self-regulated speech (Lantolf &

Ahmed 1989).

Larsen-Freeman (1991) concluded by suggesting that research on the

extent of variability did not invalidate the notion of IL systematicity. What
remained unclear she stated "is just what kind of system it is" (ibid.: 322).
In Long's (1990: 659) view variability can be accounted for by recognising
that IL development is "not linear; backsliding is common, giving rise to so-
called U-shaped behavior observed in first and second language
acquisition". Development is for the most part gradual and incremental, but
some sudden changes in performance suggest occasional fundamental
restructuring of the underlying grammar.

7
Larsen-Freeman (1997) suggested that the application of chaos theory to
SLA offers the most satisfactory explanation for IL variability and indeed
the whole SLA phenomenon. "Chaos", she suggests, "refers simply to the
period of complete randomness that complex nonlinear systems enter into
regularly and unpredictably" (ibid.: 143). She further clarified her position:

A major reason for the unpredictable behaviour of complex systems is their

sensitive dependence on initial conditions. A slight change in initial
conditions can have vast implications for future behavior. Indeed, the
behavior of systems with different initial conditions, no matter how similar,
diverges exponentially as time passes. A phenomenon known popularly as
"the butterfly effect" exemplifies this feature and underscores the
interdependence of all the components in the system. The butterfly effect
is the notion that a butterfly fluttering its wings in a distant part of the world
today can transform the local weather pattern next month.
(ibid.: 144)

By viewing interlanguage as a complex dynamic system, as Larsen-

Freeman suggested, the variability/systematicity problem disappeared -
chaos theory recognises the persistent instability in complex dynamic
systems, so that, as she concluded, "an unstable system is not a
contradiction in terms" (ibid.: 156).

1.5. Psycholinguistic and

sociolinguistic aspects
In this section we will look at IL from the psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic
perspectives. What are the psychological and social factors involved in the
construction of IL in the mind of the individual learner?

1.5.1. Early psycholinguistic perspectives on SLA: Lenneberg's latent

language structure and Selinker's latent psychological structure

One of the main debates relating to SLA in psycholinguistics is about the

extent to which language learning is different from other types of learning,
and whether the difference extends from the learning of the first language
to subsequent languages.

Lenneberg (1967) hypothesised the existence of a latent language

structure which is inherent in the human mind. This latent language
structure is the biological basis of universal grammar, and it is transformed

8
by the child into the conscious structure of a specific grammar during the
child's language learning. There are clear links with the idea of Chomsky's
(1969) LAD (Language Acquisition Device) here - see the subject Second
Language Acquisition for a review of this.

The latent language structure's main features were:

• it is an already formulated arrangement in the brain,

• it is the biological basis of universal grammar;

• it is transformed by the child into the structure of a particular grammar

in accordance with certain maturational stages.

However, Selinker (1972) argued that in SLA this latent language structure
is only reactivated by a very small percentage of second language learners
-which he calculated to be a mere 5%- who manage to achieve native-
speaker competence. Selinker hypothesised that learners have a second
structure in the brain: the latent psychological structure. This latent
psychological structure differs from Lenneberg's latent language structure
in several ways:

There is no genetic timetable; there is no direct counterpart to any

grammatical concept such as "universal grammar"; there is no guarantee
that the latent structure will be activated at all; there is no guarantee that
the latent structure will be "realized" into the actual structure of any natural
language (i.e. there is no guarantee that attempted learning will prove
successful), and there is every possibility that an overlapping exists
between this latent structure and other intellectual structures.
(1972: 33)

All second language learners, according to Selinker, activate the latent

psychological structure. Those learners, however, who go on to attain a
native-like command of the foreign language, activate the latent language
structure as well as the latent psychological structure.

In short, as far as language learning is concerned, Selinker considered that

the human brain has two well differentiated latent structures: the latent
language structure and the latent psychological structure. Those few who
manage to reactivate the former will eventually achieve native-speaker
competence. For those learners who fail to activate this latent language

9
structure the probability of attaining native-like command of the second
language is minimal.

1.5.2. The internal syllabus: a pathway for language learning

Corder (1967) proposed the existence of an internal syllabus that operates

in the learning of any L2. This internal syllabus was characterised in two
slightly different forms. The first is what Corder called the strong version.
It maintained that all individuals' ILs follow approximately the same
developmental path, irrespective of their mother tongue. There are two
considerations:

- L1=L2 (Dulay and Burt 1974), that is to say, the processes involved in
learning the L1 and the L2 are the same.

- There is a natural order of acquisition, common to all the individuals who

learn the L2, although this order is not necessarily exactly the same as the
acquisition order of the individual who learns the L1 (see the
subject Second Language Acquisition for the order of acquisition of specific
morphemes in both L1 and L2).

The second version of the built-in syllabus is the weak version, and this
one implied that the order of acquisition is determined to some extent by
the L1.

Although both versions leave the question of exactly what processes are
involved in such a hypothesis open, it seems clear that the human brain
contains a sequential organiser for receiving language data which acts
independently of the external learning programme which may be imposed
on the individual in formal language learning contexts. In other words, the
structural syllabus that you as a teacher may decide to follow with your
learners will not necessarily have any effect on your learners' acquisition.
If their IL has not developed to the stage where it is' ready' to acquire, for
example, the past simple, it simply will not do so. Instruction has no effect
on the order of acquisition. Littlewood (1984) summarised this point in this
way:

The idea of the internal syllabus is supported by the fact that learners make
similar kinds of errors, irrespective of what course of instruction they have
followed or whether they have received formal instruction at all.
(1984: 35)

10
That said, Ellis (1993: 92) suggested that while the structural syllabus may
be unrealistic in terms of what it expects students to produce, it may well
serve as a means of "raising students' consciousness about grammar" and
thus enable them to notice the gap between the current state of their own
IL and the input. This is an aspect of IL development which will be dealt
with more fully in the next chapter when we consider the role of
consciousness in SLA.

1.5.3. Sociolinguistic perspectives on interlanguage: Tarone's stylistic

continuum

A social perspective on IL was offered by Elaine Tarone. In the

paper Interlanguage as chameleon, Tarone (1979) identified IL with natural
language because of its versatility in different situations. Tarone based her
theory on the principle established by Labov (1970) of studying language
in its social context; she proposed that IL consists of different styles and
its linguistic and phonological characteristics change according to the
social context.

Thus IL, according to Tarone, involved a stylistic continuum, with, at one

end of the continuum, the careful style, and at the other end, the vernacular
style. The style used by the speaker varies according to the attention paid
to speech, and the speaker's IL changes depending on this factor. The less
attention paid to speech - as normally happens in informal situations - the
less learners are conscious of linguistic forms, and the more likely they are
to make spontaneous choices in terms of linguistic forms. In this instance
they are using the vernacular style. On the contrary, the more attention
paid to speech, as would be the case in a more formal setup, the more
consciously learners attend to linguistic forms, and use the careful style.

Tarone's theory offered an explanation as to why learner language may be

so variable and it related language use to language learning. However, it
was not without its problems. Research showed that learners are not
always less accurate when using the vernacular style or more accurate
when using the careful style. Also, style shifting among students does not
correspond to specific social contexts, as is the case with native speakers,
but rather seems to be dependent on whether or not the learner has time
to plan the output. Thus style shifting could be said to be
psycholinguistically motivated, rather than socially motivated, as Tarone
had originally claimed. However, whether psycho- or sociolinguistically
motivated, the existence of a variety of styles in a learner's IL does
undermined the idea of IL as a static monolith at any given moment in time.

11
1.5.4. Schumann's acculturation model

Ellis (1997) suggests that Schumann's acculturation model is similar to

Tarone's stylistic continuum in that both perspectives share a concern with
social factors. As we saw in the subject Second Language Acquisition the
central idea in this model is "distance", which can be both social and
psychological. Schumann elaborates on two instances of social distance
as follows:

One of the bad situations... would be where the TL (target language) group
views the 2LL (second language learner) as dominant and the 2LL group
views itself in the same way; where both groups desire preservation and
high enclosure for the 2LL group; where the 2LL group is both cohesive
and large; where the two cultures are not congruent; where the two groups
hold negative attitudes toward each other, and where the 2LL group intends
to remain in the TL area for only a short time. This type of situation is likely
to develop for Americans living in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
(1978: 80-81)
The second bad situation... has all the characteristics of the first except that
in this case the 2LL group would consider itself subordinate and would be
considered subordinate by the TL group. This has been the traditional
situation of Navajo Indians living in the Southwest, and of American Indians
in general.

Psychological distance could thus be seen to be a consequence of social

distance although clearly all the factors mentioned by Schumann would not
be necessary for a learner to feel psychological distance.

Ellis (1997) suggests that there are two problems with Schumann's model
- both social and psychological distance are assumed to be stable and
impervious to change. Learners, he argues, are "not just subject to social
conditions but can also become the subject of them" (ibid.: 41). As such,
social and psychological distance may be variables which can be, at least
in certain circumstances, affected by the individual learner.

1.5.5. Creative construction and restructuring

As we saw earlier in this chapter, IL is variable and subject to change. This

dynamic aspect of IL has been seen alternatively as a process of creation
and as a process of restructuring.

12
Dulay, Burt and Krashen proposed a theory of creative construction to
account for SLA, which they defined as:

The subconscious process by which language learners gradually organize

the language they hear, according to the rules they construct to understand
and generate sentences.
(1982:276)

Dulay and Burt (1974) characterised several of the errors they identified in
learners' output as being caused by this process. That is, learners seemed
to make up rules about the L2 through a process of creative construction
which could not be traced to L1 interference.

Thus creative construction is based on the principle that learners of foreign

languages establish the rules of their IL using natural mental processes
such as overgeneralization, together with processes similar to those used
in the acquisition of the mother tongue, ignoring the rules of the L2 and
producing new forms and structures that are not present in the L2.

According to the theory of restructuring (see Ellis 1994, 1997) the

acquisition of new knowledge directly influences the structure of knowledge
which has already been acquired, and vice versa. Thus a learner will
reorganise his/her IL when he/she receives new evidence about the target
language. In other words, restructuring of the IL will take place.
A restructuring continuum (Corder 1978) was proposed, whereby the
learner gradually replaces L1 rules with L2 rules, and thus moves along a
continuum from the L1 closer and closer to target language norms.

However, this idea of a smooth progression of IL development along an IL

continuum. was problematic in that it did not account for the frequent
regression which a learner's IL may go through. A learner may for example
learn the word went as the past tense of go. Later, however, that same
learner, when she comes across the morpheme -ed as used for regular
past simple, may produce the form goed. Later still, went may be used
correctly again. Thus it would seem that acquisition follows a U-shaped
course of development, which is not accounted for by the idea of an IL
continuum. It is precisely this feature of interlanguage which, as we saw
earlier, Larsen-Freeman (1997) used chaos theory to account for.

Ellis (1994) reported Corder's proposal (1978) that in developing his/her IL,
the individual used both recreation and restructuring, providing a synthesis
between these two positions. This means that:

13
Learners create unique rules not to be found in either the L1 or the TL
(target language) and then gradually complexify these rules in the direction
of those in the TL, particularly in the case of syntax learnt in informal
environments. They also make use of their L1, gradually restructuring it as
they discover how it differs from the TL, a process that Corder suggests is
more prevalent in the case of phonology learnt in formal environments...
Thus, both universal principles and the learner's L1 are involved in the
process of acquiring an L2.
(Ellis 1994:115)

1.6. Linguistic processes in the

construction of interlanguage
So far we have focused on some of the general characteristics of IL and on
some of the ideas about the psychological and social factors operating in
the construction of IL. In this section we will look more closely at some of
the accounts of linguistic processes involved in the construction of IL.

Selinker saw the development of IL as resting on five central processes (in

Ellis 1994:351):

1. Language transfer: some, but certainly not all, items, rules and
subsystems of a learner's IL may be transferred from the first language.

2. Overgeneralization of target language structures: some interlanguage

elements are the result of a "clear overgeneralization" of target language
rules and semantic features.

3. Transfer of training: some IL elements may derive from the way in which
learners are taught.

4. Strategies used in second language learning: Selinker defines a strategy

as "an identifiable approach by the learner to the material to be learned"
(1972:37).

5. Strategies used in second language communication: These are "an

identifiable approach by the learner to communication with native speakers
of the TL" (ibid:37).

We will now look at each of these processes in turn.

14
1.6.1. The nature of transfer

Language transfer has been described as the carrying over of features of

one language to another. Richards (1974) defined transfer as "the use of
elements from one language while speaking another".

What linguistic elements are transferred depends on the individual's implicit

belief about what is transferable or not from his/her first language. Thus the
distance between L1 and L2 in terms of linguistic features is considered to
be a decisive factor (Jordens 1980), and language transfer will be more
frequent when the L1 and the L2 are similar.

However, it is important to note that language transfer does not only refer
to transfer from the mother tongue. The knowledge of another language (or
languages) increases the possibilities of language transfer from these
second languages. In fact, in these cases, transfer often takes place from
the already present L2 interlanguages, while mother tongue interference
may be minimal. For example, a spanish learner of english as an L2, who
already knows some french as an L2, may be more likely to transfer from
french into english than from his/her mother tongue (spanish).

Thus it would appear that the relationship between interlanguages,

whatever their nature, is more direct than the relationship between an L1
and an interlanguage.

Indeed it sometimes seems as if sophisticated adult learners unconsciously

classify their experience of languages and as a strategy prefer the
hypothesis that a new second language is more likely to resemble a known
second language than their native tongue.
(Corder 1983:74)

1.6.2. The effects of transfer

The effects of language transfer can be of two sorts:

- Positive transfer: this is the kind of transfer that facilitates learning and
happens when there is a coincidence of elements between the L1 and the
L2.

- Negative transfer (interference): this is the kind of language transfer

that refers to the use of a structure or element of the L1 that it is not
appropriate in the L2, thereby producing an error.

15
One of the problems with the concept of transfer is that some researchers,
when researching learner output, do not take into account the possibility of
positive transfer, and instead identify language transfer solely with its
negative aspects. Clearly, for any consideration of transfer to be complete,
we need to take into account transfer that is both negative and positive.

One could argue, from a pedagogical point of view, that if transfer (both
positive and negative) is a learning strategy that all learners make use of,
then it might be useful for teachers to draw their students' attention to
similarities and differences between the L2 and their mother tongue, so as
to consciously encourage positive transfer and to warn students of areas
of possible negative transfer. Translation activities have become a feature
of newer coursebooks as learners are encouraged to become aware of
similarities and differences between their L1 and english (e.g. the language
in use series).

Reflective task 1.2.

Think of three grammatical structures that are almost the same in spanish
and english, and that you could encourage your students to use positive
transfer with.

Also, think of three grammatical structures that are different in spanish and
english, but which learners often transfer, and that you could make your
students aware of, so as to hopefully avoid this negative transfer.

To see the comments on this task you will find the "Assessment" section
of the subject (virtual campus).

1.6.3. Transfer and language universals

In the subject Second Language Acquisition we saw that we could not

always predict what elements of their L1 learners would transfer to their L2
learning. Cognitive accounts of L2 learning, on the other hand, have
identified that one of the main constraints that governs transfer from the L1
to the L2 is that of learners' perceptions of what is transferable and what is
not.

Kellerman (1984), for example, stated that learners have definite

perceptions about what they can and what they cannot transfer from their
L1: learners seem to treat some features of their L1 as potentially

16
transferable, and others as potentially non-transferable. Ellis explains this
tendency as follows:

Broadly speaking...learners have a sense of what features in their L1 are

in some way basic. They are more prepared to risk transferring such
features than they are those they perceive to be unique to their own
language. Kellerman found that advanced dutch learners of english had
clear perceptions about which meanings of "breken" ("break") were basic
in their L1 and which were unique. He found that they were prepared to
translate a sentence like:

Hij brak zijn been. (He broke his leg.)

directly into english, using "broke" for "brak" but were not prepared to give
a direct translation of a sentence like:

Het ondergrondse verset werd gebroken. (The underground resistance

was broken.)

even though this was, in fact, possible. In other words, the learners
transferred a basic meaning of "breken" but resisted transferring a meaning
they perceived as unique.
(Ellis 1997:53)

Thus it has been proposed that learners will be more likely to transfer
"basic" structures or meanings (known as unmarked structures) from their
L1 than more unique or unusual (marked) structures. That is, universal
typologies will have an effect on transfer (see the subject Second
Language Acquisition for a review of this). Again, Ellis provides a clear
example, this time considering the transfer of certain features of
pronunciation:

English contrasts the sounds /t/ and /d/ word initially (tin/din), word medially
(betting/bedding), and word finally (wet/wed). German, however, only
contrasts these two sounds word initially and word medially. Typologically,
the word initial contrast is unmarked and the word final contrast marked. It
can be predicted, then, that english learners will have no difficulty learning
that the word final contrast does not exist in German, but that German
learners will experience considerable difficulty in learning to make the final
contrast in english. This is what has been found to occur.
(1997:70-1)

17
To summarise: language universals seem to play a fundamental role in
transfer. Thus in considering IL development we need to bear in mind not
only the possible influences of the mother tongue, and the system of the
foreign language itself, but also the role of language universals.

1.6.4. Overgeneralization

Generalization may be considered a fundamental process in the

construction of an IL. However, overgeneralization also occurs and this is
characterised by the extensive use of a grammatical form of the L2 in
situations where another rule applies. Ellis defines overgeneralization as
follows:

The oversuppliance of an interlanguage feature in contexts in which it does

not occur in target-language use (e.g.'He ated ice-cream').
Overgeneralizations result in errors.
(1997:142)

Thus through the process of overgeneralization, both the interlanguage

system and those of the L2 are combined so, theoretically, the kind of
erroneous structures that result are independent of the individual's mother
tongue. Richards (1974) considered that these errors were common to
speakers of different languages when they developed hypotheses about
the structure of the second/foreign language. All learners of the same L2,
irrespective of their mother tongue, would produce the same kinds of
errors; thus overgeneralization has a universal character.

This process of overgeneralization was compared to the same sort of

process that operates for children learning their mother tongue (Littlewood
1984). According to Ervin-Tripp (1974):

Possibly the morphological and syntactic simplifications of second

language learners correspond to some simplification common among
children (i.e. mother tongue speakers) learning the same tongue.

The two main features of overgeneralization are firstly, the tendency to use
regular forms where possible (as illustrated in Ellis "He ated ice-
cream" example above), and secondly, to simplify elements and structures.
These processes are known as regularisation and simplification,
respectively.

18
These processes are not exclusive to language learning as they also apply
to other areas of knowledge in our tendency to classify and distribute real
world objects into categories. Richards (1971) suggested that in the
language process, simplification (and reduction) are caused by the
individual's attempt to reduce the complexity of the language system. A few
examples will shed some light on this process:

- no understand,

- he champion,

- is man.

(Butterworth and Hatch 1978)

Here we can see clearly that the learner is making life easier for himself by,
in the first example, leaving out the pronoun "I" and the auxiliary "don't"; in
the second example the verb "to be", is ignored, and finally the
pronoun "he", plus the article "a" are skipped. Note how the meaning of
each of these messages remains clear, despite the grammatical reduction.

Jain (1974) distinguished between two fundamental types of

overgeneralization which depend on the L1's degree of proximity to the L2:

- Overgeneralizations that are produced in a "creative" way cause more

errors.

- Overgeneralizations that are based on the L2 produce fewer errors.

According to Jain (ibid.) errors will help the teacher to determine which
areas of the L2 need more attention and what kind of attention is needed.

1.6.5. Transfer of training

The way in which a foreign language is taught appears to play a

fundamental role in the individual's IL development. It has been proposed,
as we will see below, that some erroneous IL features may be caused by
the way in which learners are taught.

Richards (1971) suggested that teachers may overemphasise, for

example, the form of the present continuous which, in turn, may lead to
individuals extending its use to situations where the present simple is
required.

19
A further aspect, also underlined by Richards (ibid.), is that certain teaching
techniques can actually encourage erroneous uses of different forms, as in
this transformation drill:

Teacher Instruction Student

"he walks quickly" change it to present continuous "he is walks quickly"

Here the teacher is asking a student to transform a sentence from the

present simple to the present continuous. Richards suggests that this
standard kind of transformation exercise can cause errors of
overgeneralization.

As well as the need to avoid excessive use of certain structures and

transformation exercises, it is also important for the teacher to be aware of
the order in which language is presented to students. For example, many
courses focus on the present simple before the present continuous,
whereas morpheme studies have shown that both native speakers and L2
learners acquire the present simple after the present continuous (see the
subject Second Language Acquisition). Given that the introduction of new
language in the classroom does not always follow the natural order of
acquisition many examples of negative transfer may be traced to these two
sources - either through ignoring the natural order of acquisition or
reinforcing overgeneralization through task types.

Thus transfer of training may be seen as an important aspect of second

language acquisition and IL development. Furthermore, it can be
considered one of the few elements that can be controlled by teachers.
Courses could be designed to offer more suitable input for students in
terms not only of pedagogical activity types, but also in terms of language
item sequencing.

1.6.6. Learning strategies and communication strategies

IL theory led the way for research into what learners do to facilitate their
own language learning. This was very significant because it was the first
attempt to take into account the learners' conscious attempts to control their
own learning (and hence to move on from the dominant 'subconscious'
accounts of SLA). Research centred around learning strategies. Richards,

20
Platt and Weber (1986:274) describe strategies used in the construction of
IL as:

Procedures used in learning, thinking etc. which serve as a way of reaching

a goal. In language learning, learning strategies and communication
strategies are those conscious or unconscious processes which language
learners make use of in learning and using a language.

In this section we will look at learning strategies and communicative

strategies separately.

1.6.7. Learning strategies

Learning strategies, according to Ellis (1997:76-7), are "the particular

approaches or techniques that learners employ to try to learn an L2". He
refers to three main types of learning strategy in a summary of the main
learning strategies identified in the literature:

1. Cognitive strategies are those involved in the analysis, synthesis, or

transformation of learning materials. An example is "recombination", which
involves constructing a meaningful sentence by recombining known
elements of the L2 in a new way.

2. Metacognitive strategies are those involved in planning, monitoring, and

evaluating learning. An example is "selective attention", where the learner
makes a conscious decision to attend to particular aspects of the input.

3. Social/affective strategies concern the ways in which learners choose to

interact with other speakers. An example is "questioning for clarification"
(i.e. asking for repetition, a paraphrase, or an example).

One of the most elusive questions in SLA research is the relationship

between the learning processes of the L1 and the L2, and the degree of
similarity or difference between them. It has, for example, been argued that
the learning strategies used for the L2 are the same as the ones employed
for the L1. Richards, Platt and Weber (1986), in their definition of the term,
did not distinguish between L1 and L2 learning strategies. Specific
processes such as overgeneralization or simplification seem to operate in
both L1 and L2, but language transfer, as Corder (1983) pointed out, only
occurs in L2 learning. Clearly there are certain strategies in the learning
process that are common to both the L1 and L2 - however, in the case of

21
L2 learning the individual also has at his/her disposal an L1 which offers
the possibility of using transfer as a learning strategy.

Višnja Pavičić Takač (2008) summarises both the importance, and the
limitations of research into learning strategies:

The significance of interlanguage theory lies in the fact that it is the first
attempt to take into account the possibility of learner conscious attempts to
control their learning. It was this view that initiated an expansion of research
into psychological processes in interlanguage development whose aim was
to determine what learners do in order to help facilitate their own learning,
i.e. which learning strategies they employ (Griffiths & Parr, 2001). It seems,
however, that the research of Selinker's learning strategies, with the
exception of transfer, has not been take up by other researchers.

1.6.8. Communication strategies

Communication strategies have been defined in a number of different

ways:

- A systematic technique employed by a speaker to express his meaning

when faced with some difficulty
(Corder 1978).

- A mutual attempt of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations

when requisite meaning structures are not shared
(Tarone 1980).

- Potentially conscious plans for solving what an individual presents to itself

as a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal
(Faerch and Kasper 1986).

- Techniques of coping with difficulties in communicating in an imperfectly

known second language
(Stern 1983: 411).

As Bialystok (1990) pointed out, these definitions, although different in

detail, all have three features in common: those of problematicity,
consciousness, and intentionality, aspects that have been studied in some
depth within the field. It is also important to note that strategies are not used
in a haphazard way: their use depends, to a great extent, both on the
interlocutor's and on the learner's knowledge of the L2.

22
There have been many attempts to classify communication strategies from
different points of view. The taxonomy included here is the one developed
by Tarone (1980), which, as Bialystok (1990) noted:

Has proven robust and complete -subsequent taxonomies can invariably

be traced to her original categories, and data collected by different
researchers for different purposes has confirmed the logic and utility of her
distinctions.

Tarone's taxonomy is as follows:

1. Avoidance: avoidance of certain linguistic features which learners

consider difficult.

- Topic avoidance: avoidance of the topic rather than avoidance of

specific linguistic features.

- Message abandonment: giving up trying to communicate a message in

the face of difficulty.

2. Paraphrase: repeating what has just been said using other words.

- Approximation: trying to paraphrase in order to "approximate" (get a

closer understanding of) what an interlocutor says.

- Word coinage: inventing words, either based on the L1 or the L2 in order

to get a meaning across.

- Circumlocution: talking around a subject, or describing something when

the exact word for the concept is not known, in order to make oneself
understood.

3. Conscious transfer: consciously transferring a feature of L1 or another

L2 to the TL.

- Literal translation: literal translation L1 into the L2.

- Language switch: resorting to the mother tongue or another L2.

4. Appeal for assistance: asking the interlocutor for help.

5. Mime: the use of gesture to illustrate what is being said.

23
1.7. The process of fossilization in
interlanguage
A process that most second language learners seem to be susceptible to
is that of fossilization (Selinker 1972). We came across this concept briefly
in the subject Second Language Acquisition. Fossilization, you will
remember, refers to the process whereby a learner's IL development stops
some way short of target language norms. As Zhao Hong Han (2009)
notes, this happens even when the conditions for language learning seem
right:

Thus, a fundamental concern in L2 research has been that learners

typically stop short of targetlike attainment, i.e., the monolingual native
speaker's competence, in some or all linguistic domains, even in
environments where input seems abundant, motivation appears strong,
and opportunity for communicative practice is plentiful.

Ellis (ibid.) also refers to the fact that some learners may well succeed in
reaching target-language norms in some types of discourse (for example,
in planned discourse) while falling short of target-language norms in other
types of discourse (for example, in unplanned, spontaneous discourse).

In this section on fossilization, we will consider two issues: the causes of

fossilization, and the implications of fossilization for classroom practice.

1.7.1. Causes of fossilization

Ellis (1994), suggested there is no single cause for fossilization and he

summarised the literature on fossilization under two headings: internal and
external factors.

Internal factors he identified as (i) age and (ii) the lack of desire to
acculturate. Ellis (ibid.: 354) describes these factors as follows:

i. when learners reach a critical age their brains lose plasticity, with the
result that certain linguistic features cannot be mastered, and

ii. as a result of various social and psychological factors, learners make no

efforts to adopt TL cultural norms -the outcome of which is that IL falls short
of target language norms.

24
External factors were identified as:

i. communicative pressure,

ii. lack of learning opportunity,

iii. the nature of feedback on learner's use of L2.

The first of these refers to what Ellis called the "persistent pressure to
communicate ideas that require the use of language that exceeds the
learner's linguistic competence" (ibid.). This is felt to produce errors which
become fixed in the learner's IL. The second factor refers to lack of
opportunity for receiving input and producing output, while the third factor
is described as follows:

Positive cognitive feedback (signalling "I understand you") results in

fossilization; negative feedback (signalling "I don't understand you") helps
avoid fossilization.
(ibid.)

1.7.2. Classroom implications and future developments in research

If fossilization is understood in Selinker's (1972) sense then, once it occurs,

it becomes a permanent feature of IL although the fossilized feature may
temporarily disappear. This view stated.

Fossilizable linguistic phenomena are linguistic items, rules and

subsystems which speakers of a particular NL will tend to keep in their IL
relative to a particular TL, no matter what the age of the learner or amount
of explanation and instruction he receives in the TL.

Other views of fossilization have been proposed which can accommodate

change, such as might be possible. in an immersion programme which is
supplemented with contact with native speakers of the TL.

However, under Selinker's (1972) view, the business of the teacher would
be to prevent fossilization occurring in the first place, as any feature of IL
which changed as a result of instruction would not be categorised as
fossilized.

The external factors listed by Ellis (1994) and reproduced above are thus
extremely important for teachers as all three represent variables which

25
teachers have the power to affect. These would suggest that a pedagogy
which places inappropriate communicative demands on students and does
not incorporate a focus on form could contribute to fossilization.

1.8. Corpus-based linguistics

challenges to interlanguage research
As the view has gained ground that conscious attention to form through
noticing, reconstruction etc., contributes to SLA, and indeed a lack of
opportunities to do so might be contributing to fossilization, course books
have reflected this in their inclusion of this type of activity. We will deal with
this in much greater depth in the next section.

Before we move to the detail of cognitive accounts of language learning,

we need to gain perspective on the current changes across all the research
areas of SLA. We have touched on some of the issues arising from
linguistic, sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic accounts of interlanguage
and its role in SLA, and seen the historical significance of interlanguage
theories and research. However, these fields are changing rapidly. New
work in sociolinguistics challenges the view of language that underlies
interlanguage research. Sociolinguistic research facilitated by computer
analysis of language corpus has led to advances in usage-based linguistic
theory, (that is; linguistic theory that refers to actual language use as
opposed to theory that refers only to an idealized language structure
represented by grammar rules). This challenges the concept of an
interlanguage as something that can be described with reference to an
idealized "correct" underlying analytical system, and the very notion of an
interlanguage as we are discussing it in this chapter.

Language is seen instead as a highly complex emergent system, which

can be learnt through use alone, but it is argued, its developing complexity
cannot be captured through the existence or not in output of examples of
idealized structures. This is an important area for the development of the
field, and you might like to follow this up through this article by Thornbury,
S. (2007), who gives a very clear overview of the significance of some new
theories about Language as an Emerging system.

Thornbury, S. (1997) led the move towards language teachers knowing

more about language in use and how it works in order to inform their
pedagogical practice. Thornbury, S. and Slade, D. (2006) offer language

26
teachers a bridge between the description of spoken language in use and
its implications for classroom practice, in Conversation: From
Description to Pedagogy. Chapter 1 of this source (Suggestions for
further reading) gives a feel of the complexity of spoken conversation, and
illustrates that as we are better able to describe language in use, we are
better able to see the distance between it and idealized models of
language.

Also pertinent to this discussion of new views about language acquisition

is the growing realization that learners increasingly live in multilingual
situations. Tucker, R. (1998: Chapter 1) gives an overview of the
implications of a world in which multilingualism is becoming the norm, both
in personal spheres of language and educational spheres.

1.9. Conclusion
In this chapter we have looked at the phenomenon of interlanguage, in
particular with regard to positive and negative L1 transfer, and the concept
of fossilization. IL theory led the way for research into learning strategies,
and hence led the way forward to cognitive accounts of language learning,
and the recognition of the importance of conscious learning in second
language learning. The gradual acceptance of cognitive learning
perspectives on second language acquisition have shifted the emphasis
from earlier "subconscious" accounts to accounts which place the learner,
and the learners' attempts to control their own learning at the centre of
second language development.

The final task for this chapter is included to help you digest this information
and to prepare you for the next chapter where we will consider the role of
consciousness in SLA and look at some practical suggestions for the
classroom.

1.10. Suggestions for further reading

[1] Ellis, R. (1997): Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Chapters 3 - 7.

[2] Ellis, R. (2008): The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:

Oxford University Press. Chapters 3 & 4.

27
[3] Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (eds.) (1983): Strategies in Interlanguage
Communication. New York: Longman.

[4] Oxford, R. (2011) Teaching and Researching: Language

Learning Strategies. Longman.

[5] Thornbury, S. (1997): About Language. Cambridge. Cambridge

University Press.

[6] Thornbury, S. and Slade, D. (2006): Conversation: From Description to

Pedagogy. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press Chapter 1 pp. 1-39.

[7] Tucker, R. (1998) A Global Perspective on Multilingualism and

Multilingual Education, in J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (1998) Beyond
Bilingualism. Clevedon. Multilingual Matters Chapter 1.

[8] Višnja Pavičić Takač, (2008) Vocabulary Learning Strategies and

Foreign Language Acquisition. Multilingual Matters.

[9] ZhaoHong Han (2009) Interlanguage and Fossilization: Towards an

Analytic Model, in Contemporary Applied Linguistics: Language Teaching
and Learning, ed. by Li Wei and Vivian Cook. Continuum, (2009).

1.11. Web reading

[1] A brief definition of Interlanguage. Retrieved 16. 10. 2012

from: http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=232605

[2] Tarone, Elaine E (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches to second

language acquisition research, 1997-2007. Modern Language Journal, 91,
837-848. Retrieved 16. 10. 2012 from:
https://apps.cla.umn.edu/directory/profiles/
etarone?search_results_referer_url=%2Fdirectory%2Fresults%3Fq%3Dta
rone %26per_page%3D10%26public%3D1

[3] Tarone, Elaine E (2009). A sociolinguistic perspective on interaction in

SLA, in A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.). Multiple Perspectives on Interaction,
41-56. Retrieved 16. 10. 2012 from:

28
https://apps.cla.umn.edu/directory/profiles/
etarone?search_results_referer_url=%2Fdirectory%2Fresults%3Fq%3Dta
rone%26per_page%3D10%26public%3D1

[4] Thornbury, S. Language as an emergent system. Retrieved 18. 12.

2012 from: http://www.britishcouncil.org/portugal-inenglish-200709-scott-
thornbury.pdf
This article gives a clear overview of the significance of theories about
Language as an Emergent system.

[5] Thornbury, S. (2008) What good is SLA theory? English Language

Teaching Professional, Issue 55. Retrieved 16. 1. 12 through the article
bank in Scott Thornbury’s
site: http://www.thornburyscott.com/st_1.htm#Articles

29
Chapter 2.- Consciousness, noticing
and restructuring

2.1. Introduction
We have seen how cognitive accounts of SLA have gradually taken
precedence over linguistic accounts. In this chapter you will deepen your
knowledge about some of the areas of cognitive research, and see how
this research has affected classroom practice.

Firstly we will consider the role of consciousness in language learning.

This has been at the forefront of debate in SLA since the early nineties. We
will pay particular attention to noticing, reformulation, and reconstruction.

Secondly we will consider restructuring of IL as a possible outcome of

paying conscious attention to form. The chapter and the tasks included will
also focus on these issues from the perspective of classroom practice and
the implications for task design.

We saw in the subject Tasks and Projects how the the Presentation,
Practice, Production (PPP) model of teaching dominated ELT for many
years. It is a useful starting point for a discussion of the different views that
are now held on the role of consciousness in language teaching. PPP has
been defined as:

An approach to grammar lessons based on the idea of giving (i.e.

presenting) small items of language to students, providing them with
opportunities to use it in controlled ways (practice) and finally integrating it
with other known language in order to communicate (production).
(Scrivener 1994: 215)

Harmer (1990) underlined the importance of drawing the students' attention

to grammatical form during the Presentation stage in the lesson and
provided a number of techniques for graphically highlighting this on the
board. He concludes:

30
When the students and the teacher are confident that the students can form
the new language correctly they will move to immediate creativity. Here
they try to use what they have just learned to make sentences of their own,
rather than sentences which the teacher or book has introduced as models.
(ibid.: 56)

The implication was that the language in the presentation is necessarily

assimilated by the student (depending on the skill and clarity of the teacher)
and through the opportunity for controlled practice incorporated into the
student's developing IL.

The straightforwardness of this process has been questioned for its lack of
realism about how new language is apprehended and processed by the
learner (see the subject Tasks and Projects for an overview and critique of
PPP). Two key terms here are input and intake. However, there is some
confusion about what these terms mean, as they are sometimes used
differently in SLA research (see Krashen in White 1987: 102, and Corder
in Schmidt 1990: 139). In this chapter we will use input to mean the
language that is available to the student, either in the presentation or
beyond it - what Sharwood Smith (1993: 166) called "the learner's
experience of the target language in all its various manifestations", and
intake as "that part of the input that the learner notices" (Schmidt 1990:
137).

The concept of noticing, while deriving much from the traditional PPP
model's insistence on 'highlighting the form', also raises the issue of the
role of consciousness in enabling students to learn more effectively.
Schmidt and Frota (1986) referred to two kinds of noticing:

- Conscious awareness of salient features in the input.

- "Noticing the gap", where learners become aware of differences between

their own linguistic output and what is present in input.

In this chapter we will discuss the importance of noticing in language

learning and suggest some ways in which noticing can be incorporated into
classroom practice. We will also consider reformulation and reconstruction
as tasks which can promote noticing. We will begin by looking at
consciousness generally, and subsequently proceed to consider it under
the sub-headings of salience, limited capacity processing, and
finally, noticing the gap. These terms will be explained more fully in the
course of the discussion.

31
2.2. Consciousness
There has been a gradual move away from SLA theories that emphasized
the subconscious nature of language learning towards theories in which
consciousness plays a part. This section will give you an overview of the
historical development of this shift.

Schmidt (1990) suggested that the role of consciousness in SLA had

traditionally been overlooked because of the influence of behaviourists who
rejected it as an unreliable prescientific term, and because others, mainly
Freud and Chomsky were responsible for a concomitant privileging of the
subconscious. Consciousness is problematic in SLA as it raises the issue
of explicit and implicit knowledge, an area about which there is
considerable disagreement. Explicit knowledge has been defined as
"knowledge of rules and items that exist in an analysed form so that
learners are able to report what they know" (Ellis 1994: 702) and implicit
knowledge is "knowledge that is intuitive and tacit. It cannot be directly
reported" (ibid.: 707). While the former may refer to a learner's ability to
articulate a grammatical rule or explain why an utterance is not possible,
the latter refers to unanalysed chunks of language the learner may be able
to produce and "generalized and abstract structures which have been
internalized" (ibid.: 356).

Krashen's Monitor theory which distinguished between "learning" and

"acquisition" (a distinction few, if any, SLA researchers admit nowadays)
rested on the explicit/implicit division. You will recall from the
subject Second Language Acquisition that Krashen believed that learning
is the result of a conscious process, and acquisition the result of a
subconscious one. "In general" he stated, "utterances are initiated by the
acquired system - our fluency in production is based on what we have
"picked up" through active communication" (1981: 2). In a more radical vein
however, Krashen claimed that there is no transfer from the learned system
to the acquired system and he asserted, "Error correction and explicit
teaching of rules are not relevant to language acquisition" (ibid.: 1) - in other
words, there is no transfer of information from a system based on explicit
knowledge to one based on the comprehension of messages alone - where
knowledge of grammar is implicit.

Bialystok's 1978 model of Second Language Learning (in Ellis 1994) was
an attempt to widen the scope of Krashen's theory to allow for an interface
position - where these two different types of knowledge have access to and

32
affect each other, so that (for example) a grammatical structure for which a
student has explicit knowledge can become implicit knowledge through
practice (for the remainder of this chapter the terms acquisition and
learning are used interchangeably, unless stated otherwise.)

Bialystok's model, Schmidt (1990: 129) argued, provided "a theoretical

framework that allows a role for conscious knowledge", and referring to
studies in cognitive psychology, where the role of consciousness is
recognised, he argued that too much attention has been paid to the
operation of unconscious processes in SLA.

Skehan (1998:83) gives a thorough overview of a later version of

Bialystock's later model (1990) - known as the Analysis-Control Model,
which emphasized the processing elements of both the analysis and
management of language in SLA. Skehan (ibid: 87) ends his summary of
the models of SLA,

... how difficult it is to have a model which gives a satisfactory account of

representation, learning (change) and processing performance. Each of
the models emphasizes one of the areas, somewhat at the expense of the
others.

You may wish at this point to refresh your knowledge about models of SLA.
For the purposes of this section however, our concern is to realize that
Bialystock's initial model, helped refocus the field towards research into the
cognitive processes involved in SLA.

Schmidt also suggests that the role of consciousness has been

underestimated because SLA researchers have generally failed to consult
students about what they are conscious of as they learn, and he offered
the study of his own attempts at learning Portuguese (Schmidt and Frota
1986) as providing evidence of the importance of the conscious noticing of
aspects of form in language learning.

Reflective task 2.1.

Draw two simple conceptual maps: one showing the learning/acquisition

distinction proposed by Krashen and one showing the interface position
proposed by Bialystok in her Model of Second Language Learning.

33
To see the comments on this task you will find the "Assessment" section
of the subject (virtual campus).

2.2.1. Types of consciousness

Schmidt identified three types of consciousness (1990: 131)

- awareness, intention and knowledge. The first type includes three
degrees of awareness, but the idea is of knowing something is there (in
language learning terms, let us say, the past tense), and paying more or
less attention to it. The second type refers to the volitional aspect and refers
to consciousness which is deliberately focused on something (e.g. -
ed endings). Schmidt's point about consciousness as knowledge is that the
explicit/implicit division is best understood as a continuum rather than as
two separate categories. He grants that there is no consensus on where to
draw the line at the point where conscious knowledge begins.

Schmidt's Portuguese learning dairy, in which he recorded his thoughts on

the learning process and the features he noticed about the language, was
backed up by a series of tape recorded interviews. These were made in
order to compensate for the risks of generalising from the diary study alone,
and the danger that what he reported was "already filtered through the
perceptions and possibly the biases of the learner" (1986: 238). The results
showed that there was:

A remarkable correspondence between my reports of what I noticed when

Brazilians talked to me and the linguistic forms I used myself... Forms that
never appeared in the input did not appear in my speech, and those that
were frequent in input were more likely to show up in my production than
those that occurred in input only a few times.
(1990: 14)

From this study Schmidt and Frota drew the conclusion that there is "strong
evidence for a close connection between noticing and emergence in
production" (ibid.: 141), but he added that by itself noticing is not sufficient
for learning. For learning to take place, it has been suggested that noticed
language has to be incorporated into the learner's "working hypothesis
about how grammar is structured" (Batstone 1994: 59).

34
2.2.2. Salience

If we accept Schmidt's findings then the question arises of how aspects of

input we wish our students to learn might become noticeable. It has been
pointed out that learners cannot be forced to notice features of language
they are not ready add to their developing IL (Batstone 1994: 57). One
suggestion is the notion of input enhancement (Sharwood Smith 1991).
This involves drawing the learner's attention to features of the text which
have been made salient. An example suggested by Sharwood Smith is the
use of differently coloured type e.g. marking all examples of the third
person -s green. Clearly there is no guarantee that the learner will notice
the enhanced input in any meaningful way - a factor Ellis refers to as the
"learnability" problem (1993: 92). Sharwood Smith agreed, but added that
we can "assume that the learner's own natural learning and processing
mechanisms also involve a kind of internally generated input
enhancement" (ibid.: 120) - in other words, noticing can be internally
triggered when the learner's own mechanisms are ready to acquire the new
structure. This poses a problem for teachers who cannot be sure what is
next in line for their learners to acquire. Perhaps the solution is necessarily
approximate, given the heterogeneous nature of most classrooms - provide
repeated opportunities for noticing and re-noticing and train students to
develop their own noticing skills. We will deal with the second point later in
the chapter.

Another way of providing enhanced input is through instruction. Schmidt

and Frota (1986: 276) concluded that "instruction was perceived by R (i.e.
Schmidt) to make a great deal of difference" in learning Portuguese. The
importance of instruction became apparent when Schmidt heard elements
of the input outside the classroom:

R learned and used what he was taught if he subsequently heard it; i.e.,
what was more frequent in input was more likely to be used.
(ibid.: 278).

This finding raises crucial questions about how learners can be provided
with opportunities for noticing in the classroom and the importance of task
design in facilitating this. Learners may need to hear (or see) target
language repeatedly before it is integrated into their developing IL.

In her critique of Krashen's input hypothesis White (1987: 107) argued that
"fine-tuned grammar teaching might also be a useful source of input". She
argued that there are "a number of situations where comprehensible input,

35
as defined by Krashen, necessarily cannot lead to change in a learner's
grammar" and cited the example of a learner who has made incorrect
generalisations about grammar where there is no negative evidence for
non-occurrence in the input. The example she gives is a learner's misuse
of the verb donate - where generalisation has led the learner to equate it
grammatically with give. Two options which might occur in input are:

1a. John gave some money to the hospital.

1b. John gave the hospital some money.

(ibid.: 104)

A learner might assume from this that donate operated grammatically in

exactly the same way and produce either or both of the following
sentences:

1a. John donated some money to the hospital.

2b. John donated the hospital some money

(ibid.: 104)

How, she asks, does the learner who produces sentence 2b lose this non-
target intermediate form, if not through instruction or correction, as no
amount of comprehensible input will provide the learner with evidence to
the contrary. Krashen's input hypothesis, she concludes, "underestimates
the problem of the acquisition of form" (ibid.: 108).

2.2.3. Limited capacity processing

One of the problems with the PPP model of teaching was that learners do
not necessarily produce what they have practised. One reason for the
model's failure may be the implicit view of the mind as capable of
assimilating the meaning, form and phonological features of a linguistic
item simultaneously. Sharwood Smith (1991), citing Jackendoff's work on
psychology, suggested the term modular as a metaphor for understanding
the human mind's multifacetedness - e.g. the way in which an optical
illusion can be seen in a number of different ways, but not all at the same
time. A similar idea was put forward by Van Patten (1990: 288), who asked
if learners can simultaneously process data consciously for meaning and
form. He suggested the answer is no, and adds:

36
Given the limited capacity for processing involved in conscious attention,
and that conscious processing during learning in general is serial and
effortful in nature, it is doubtful that learners in the early and intermediate
stages of acquisition pay conscious attention to form in the input.

Evidence for this assertion is provided in the account of a series of

experiments conducted with a group of english speaking university
students of spanish (1990). Van Patten set out to prove three hypotheses,
which can be summarised as follows:

a) that a task involving attention to "non-communicative grammatico-

morphological forms" would adversely affect comprehension;

b) that attention to important lexical items would not adversely affect

comprehension, and

c) that advanced learners would be better able to direct attention to form

given their superior comprehension skills.

Students were asked to carry out one of four listening tasks:

1. Listen for content only.

2. Listen for content and note the occurrence of one key lexical item.

3. Listen for content and note the occurrence of the feminine definite article.

4. Listen for content and note the occurrence of the verb morpheme -n.

From the results Van Patten (ibid.: 296) concluded that:

Conscious attention to form in the input competes with conscious attention

to meaning, and by extension, that only when input is easily understood
can learners attend to form as part of the intake process.

Skehan (1996: 45) agreed with this conclusion and describes the "capacity-
robbing" feature of paying attention as follows:

One chooses to attend to some things at the expense of others, and the
choice of attentional direction, as well as the use of attentional resources
themselves, have costs as far as the processing of potential foregone
material is concerned.

37
This has implications for the tasks teachers set - we want to avoid
overloading students by not insisting on simultaneous processing for
meaning and form, but also we need to remember to cater for both types
of processing. Van Patten (1993) addresses this issue further in examining
the effects of a variety of task types on learners' performance.

Three groups of english speaking students were taught spanish object

pronouns in three different ways and then tested on their ability to
manipulate them effectively. One group received no formal instruction
(following the Natural Approach), a second group received a PPP approach
- "at all times the traditional instruction focused the learners on producing
the targeted items" (ibid.: 230), and a third group received what Van Patten
called "processing instruction". This involved clarifying grammatical terms
for students (subject and object pronouns), and pointing out that spanish
and english are very different in this area. What makes "processing
instruction" different is the demands the practice stage makes on learners
-"at no point did processing instruction involve the production of the
pronoun forms by the learners" (ibid.: 232)- rather, practice was receptive
based and learners (for example) listened to tapes and selected drawings
which best represented the information in the input. The overall results of
the experiment led to the conclusion that:

Instruction is apparently more beneficial when it is directed at how learners

perceive and process input rather than when it is focused on practice via
output.
(ibid.: 240)

2.2.4. Noticing the gap

Ellis (1993) too put the case for this type of practice as part of his
justification of the structural syllabus. Ellis' argument, as we saw in the
previous chapter, was that, while the structural syllabus may be unrealistic
in terms of what it expects students to produce, it may well serve as a
means of "raising students' consciousness about grammar" (ibid.: 92) and
thus enable them to notice the gap between the current state of their own
interlanguage and the input. Schmidt and Frota (1986) had argued that
learners need to make comparisons of this type, but that in contradiction to
the subconscious processes hypothesised by Krashen, such comparisons
must be made consciously -in other words, there can be no subliminal
noticing the gap.

38
Ellis (1993), in deference to the notion of limited capacity processing, and
the Schmidt/Frota insistence on consciously noticing the gap, advocated a
comprehension approach to the structural syllabus. This involves activities
of the type advocated by Van Patten (1993) whereby learners have their
attention focused on linguistic items but are not required to produce them.
The teaching of grammar thus becomes a consciousness raising process,
the aim of which is to "instill an understanding of the formal and functional
properties of these features by helping the learners develop a cognitive
representation of them" (Ellis 1993: 109), thus facilitating intake.

Schmidt and Frota (1986: 312) pointed out that "one of the advantages of
a conscious notice-the-gap principle is that it provides a way to include a
role for correction", which R had often ignored because, as the tapes later
showed, he was not always aware that he was in fact being corrected by
his interlocutor. Consequently they were led to suggest that for correction
to have any effect, learners must be aware that they are being corrected.

White (1986) too hypothesised about the benefits of correction as a short

cut to helping students notice the gap and thereby trigger restructuring of
their IL. She did however, admit that learners may still fail to make use of
corrective feedback. This raises the question of how corrective feedback
could be made optimally salient and useful for learners. We will return to
this point later.

2.3. Implications for the classroom

The conditions for noticing may be listed as follows:

- the item to be noticed should be significant for the learner;

- it should be salient;

- it should be frequent;

- it should require attention to processing of form;

- it should not require simultaneous attention to processing of meaning;

- there should be time to notice the item.

It may not be possible to know what is significant to learners at any given

stage in the development of their IL. However, point 1 above is related to

39
points 4 and 5 in that comprehension tasks can be designed in such a way
that students are forced to pay attention to the formal characteristics of the
language. In other words, the tasks we set can help make elements of the
input significant to the learner. Schmidt (1990: 143) argued:

Task demands are a powerful determinant of what is noticed, and provide

one of the basic arguments that what is learned is what is noticed... it really
does not matter whether someone intends to learn or not; what matters is
how the task forces the material to be processed.

Batstone (1994: 100-101) provided an example of this type of task

(reproduced in the subject Tasks and Projects), where students are
prevented from lexically processing input and forced to pay attention to the
grammar being used. Activities of this type are a necessary corrective to
the receptive skills tasks that develop an exclusively top down approach at
the expense of allowing learners to engage with grammar.

Thus we have seen that salience can be ensured in a number of ways -

either through highlighting the feature graphically, in the case of a written
text, or through tasks which force engagement. An interesting variation on
this is the garden path technique (Tomasello and Herron 1988), where
learners are encouraged to make a hypothesis and then overgeneralise on
the basis of this until they produce an unacceptable form. At that moment
they are given corrective feedback which is designed to jolt them into a
state of awareness as an essential feature of the input is made salient.

Frequency in itself is no guarantee that learners will notice an item, but in

Schmidt's opinion, it increases the likelihood (1990). If an item is significant
to the learner, and salient, then we may be justified in concluding that the
repeated opportunities afforded by frequent occurrence are likely to be
beneficial in terms of noticing.

As well as incorporating the suggestions mentioned above into our

classroom practice - e.g. tasks which force students to process input by
paying attention to form, practice activities which allow students time to
assimilate new language and do not demand instant manipulation, and
opportunities for re-noticing, we also have to consider the possibility of
developing the noticing skill.

As Thornbury (1997: 327) suggests:

40
Since noticing is a conscious cognitive process, it is theoretically accessible
to training and development. This suggests that the teacher's role is to
develop noticing strategies that the student can apply independently and
autonomously.

This could mean introducing students to the idea of noticing, and devoting
classroom time to explaining its importance for their language acquisition.
Taking the cue from Schmidt, students might be encouraged to keep a
learning diary, where they reflected on their classroom experiences, the
differences they noticed between L2 and L1, and any insights they had.
This could be linked to the correction of written work, where students are
asked to write a short paragraph articulating what they noticed, either about
the target language or the state of their own IL from corrective feedback. In
this way, correction, which may have gone unnoticed, is brought to the
learner's attention and demands conscious consideration.

Much more use could be made of short translation activities, especially for
re-noticing. Two way translations, of the type advocated by Doff and Jones
(1991), could be used systematically to help students notice the gap and
redraw their attention to key aspects of the target structure. Thornbury
(1997) also suggests introducing periods of silence in the classroom to
allow for reflection - "Noticing requires the marshalling of attentional
resources, which, in turn, requires time and the absence of distractions".

Reflective task 2.2.

Look at the two texts in Appendix 2.1 and the tasks which accompany
them. What are they designed to teach? Which of the two is more likely to
promote noticing? Why?

To see the comments on this task you will find the "Assessment" section
of the subject (virtual campus).

2.4. Reformulation and reconstruction

Thornbury (1997) has also suggested
that reformulation and reconstruction activities can promote noticing
(see reading 2.1). In the case of reformulation, for example, the student's
written work can be reformulated by the teacher so that it "approximates as
closely as possible to a putative target language model. It is then available
for comparison with the student's own draft" (ibid.: 327). The student's

41
version can thus be seen as a draft which is improved on by the teacher
and the student is left with the possibility of noticing the gap between the
draft version and that reformulated by the teacher.

Thornbury (ibid.) refers to Curran's Community Language Learning (CLL)

as a methodology based on the notion of reformulation. In the
subject Methodological Approaches we saw that in this approach the
teacher reformulates, when necessary, the utterances of the students
which are then recorded for subsequent analysis. In Thornbury's (ibid.:
329) view this procedure provides at least two opportunities for noticing:

Firstly, incidental noticing may occur during the initial "conversation", when
the teacher reformulates individual learner utterances and the learner
commits these to the tape (as in writing activities, the formal requirement
of recording the utterance plus the time spent rehearsing the utterance prior
to recording, will require the learner to allocate more attention to form than
if the conversation had been unrecorded and unrehearsed (see Skehan
1996). Secondly, focused noticing is the aim of the final stage, when the
teacher explicitly directs learners' attention to the language items in the
transcript.

Reconstruction activities differ from reformulation activities in that the text

to be reconstructed originates in the teacher. Thornbury (ibid.) considers
the dictogloss as one example of a reconstruction activity. In this type of
exercise students listen and make notes as the teacher reads a text aloud
a number of times. These notes are then used to reconstruct the original
text and the students' version is compared with the teacher's version. This
procedure provides opportunities for students to notice the gap between
the teacher's input and their own output which, in turn Thornbury (ibid.)
suggests, may trigger restructuring of IL.

As we saw in an earlier section of this chapter, noticing an item may not in

itself be enough to learn it. Batstone (1994) argued:

If we were to provide learners only with noticing activities, it would be very

unlikely that anything they had noticed would remain in their heads for very
long. It would be a case of "out of sight, out of mind". Once having noticed
something about the grammar, learners have to act on it, building it into
their working hypothesis about how grammar is structured.

It is the area of restructuring that we will now look at in greater detail.

42
2.5. Restructuring
Structuring was described by Batstone (1994: 137) as "the progressive
sorting out by learners of their knowledge of language into hypotheses
about its structure". While these hypotheses are being revised in the light
of new information this gives rise to restructuring, which Ellis (1997: 143)
described as the "process by which learners reorganize their interlanguage
in the light of new evidence about the target language". In Batstone's (1994:
41) view:

Particularly salient and noticeable forms get restructured quite rapidly. But
it is dependent on continued opportunities to notice. Restructuring is
dependent on plentiful opportunities for re-noticing, so that re-noticing acts
as a kind of gateway to restructuring, the one facilitating the other.

McLaughlin (1990: 117) argued that the concept of restructuring derives

from Piaget's view "that cognitive development is an outcome of underlying
structural changes in the cognitive system", and that 'restructuring is
characterized by discontinuous, or qualitative, change as the child moves
from stage to stage in development. Each new stage constitutes a new
internal organization and not merely the addition of new structural
elements". In SLA it has been observed that IL development is not linear.
Rather, as we have seen, IL development is characterized by U-shaped
development. McLaughlin (ibid.: 121) cites Lightbown (1985) who suggests
that the "decline in performance" which is noticeable in IL development is
attributable to the effect of restructuring:

[Restructuring] occurs because language is a complex hierarchical system

whose components interact in non-linear ways. Seen in these terms, an
increase in error rate in one area may reflect an increase in complexity or
accuracy in another, followed by overgeneralization of a newly acquired
structure, or simply by a sort of overload of complexity which forces a
restructuring, or at least a simplification, in another part of the system.
(Lightbown 1985: 177)

Reflective task 2.3.

Put the following stages in the acquisition of the past tense form of buy in
a possible order and justify your answer. The order represents the U-
shaped development which typifies restructuring and has been adapted
from Ellis (1997). The first stage in the process has been marked 1.

43
 STAGE DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE

Students begin to produce correct form bought

1 Students don't produce the past tense form buy

Students produce hybrid forms boughted

Students produce the correct past tense form bought

Students overgeneralize the regular past tense form buyed

To see the comments on this task you will find the "Assessment" section
of the subject (virtual campus).

2.6. Conclusion
In this chapter we have looked at the role of consciousness in SLA and the
importance of noticing (in particular), reformulation, and reconstruction for
the restructuring of IL. Ellis (1994: 361) concluded that:

Noticing is of considerable theoretical importance because it accounts for

which features in the input are attended to and so become intake.

The evidence, as provided by Schmidt and Frota (1986) and Van Patten
(1990, 1993), would seem to be convincing. Clearly, noticing is only one
part of the complex process of acquiring a second language - but the
evidence suggests it may be a necessary part. Skehan (1996) makes the
important point with regard to noticing and the task-based approach, that
without some incorporation of form focused activity into its methodology,
learners may simply get quicker at performing tasks badly. He concludes
that conscious awareness of form is essential to "drive interlanguage
forward" (ibid: 42) - that is to trigger restructuring. Course books have
moved towards incorporating opportunities for noticing, thus taking the
emphasis off getting the students to produce new language immediately,
to allow students to slowly develop their model of the new language through
activities that encourage noticing (different types) and reconstruction.

44
2.7. Reading
[1] READING 2.1: Thornbury, S. (1997): Reformulation and
Reconstruction: Tasks that Promote Noticing. ELT Journal, 51/4: 326-335.

2.8. Appendix
[1] APPENDIX 2.1: Extracts from two coursebooks - Mohamed, S. & R.
Acklam (1992): Beginner's Choice. London: Longman; Hartley, B. & P.
Viney (1978): Streamline English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2.9. Suggestions for further reading

[1] Larsen-freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991): An Introduction to Second
Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman. Chapter 4.

[2] McLaughlin, B. (1990): "Restructuring". Applied Linguistics 11/2: 113-

128.

[3] Schmidt, R. W. (1990): "The Role of Consciousness in Second

Language Acquisition". Applied Linguistics 11/2: 129-158.

[4] Sharwood Smith, M. (1993): "Input Enhancement in Instructed

SLA". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15/2.

[5] Skehan, P. (1996): "A Framework for the Implementation of Task-based

Instruction". Applied Linguistics 17/1.

[6] Skehan, P. (1998): A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. O.U.P.

2.10. Web reading

[1] A collection of academic articles linked to the research on form focused
instruction. Retrieved 13.09.12 from:
http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Form-focused_instruction
This article offers methodological options for integrating grammar into
communicative contexts.

[2] Lessard Clouston, M. (2011) “Focusing on Form: A teachers research

45
update on form-focused instruction” CARL Linguistics Journal, 1, 1-9
January 2011, Arab Open University. Retrieved from Academia.edu
13.09.12: http://biola.academia.edu/MichaelLessardClouston/Papers/852
514/ Focusing_on_form_A_teachers_research_update_on_form-
focused_instruction

46
Chapter 3.- Input, interaction and
context

3.1. Introduction
In the previous two chapters we considered language and the learner from
the point of view of internal processes. In this chapter we will be broadening
our view of interlanguage development by taking into account the learner's
linguistic interaction with the environment, and how this can help or hinder
L2 acquisition, especially with reference to the classroom context.

Firstly, we will be focusing on the role of input in learning an L2, because

of all the factors that play an important role in foreign language learning,
input - the L2 that the individual language learner is exposed to - is
considered to be a fundamental element in the process. Input alone,
however, is not enough. We will also be looking at the role of interaction
with other speakers of the L2 in SLA, and the learner output which this
encourages. Finally we will be examining the importance of context in
learning the L2, specifically focusing on the difference between natural and
classroom contexts, and the role of instruction in helping a learner to
acquire the L2.

3.2. Characteristics of input

Most early studies which examined the role of input in second language
learning were in agreement on the fundamental importance of this element
in the process of learning. By way of example we can cite works by Kasper
(1986), Hyltenstam and Pienemann (1985), Perdue (1984), Spolsky
(1989), Scarcella and Higa (1981) and Krashen (1985), whose work we
examined in the subject Second Language Acquisition. Kasper, for
example, pointed out that many studies influenced by Piaget's philosophy,
agree in granting context, input and negotiation an importance
equivalent to the individual's internal factors. Krashen went a step further
with his input hypothesis.

47
Theorists set out to try to define the features of input which promote
learning. A fundamental condition, according to several authors was that
input has to be sufficient in terms of quantity, because, as Spolsky put it,

The more time spent learning any aspect of a second language, the more
will be learned.
(1989:166)

Thus the more the learner is exposed to the target language, the more
he/she will learn. However, many learners have very limited exposure to
L2 input. Two direct consequences that derive from this limited access to
the target language are the appearance of interferences of the mother
tongue on the one hand (Van Els et al., 1984) and the tendency towards
fossilization on the other (Perdue 1984). You will remember that we
mentioned the latter implication of restricted input on IL development in the
first chapter.

However, as the above-mentioned authors also stated, a large quantity of

input is not enough to ensure successful SLA. We also have to take into
account the kind of input the individual is going to be in contact with. It was
Krashen who first and most successfully charaterised the nature of input,
its quality.

Krashen considered that human beings acquire language in only one

possible way: by understanding messages, or receiving what he
calls comprehensible input. You will remember from the subject Second
Language Acquisition that Krashen defined comprehensible input as i+1,
that is, input which is just beyond the learner's current level of ability. By
being exposed to comprehensible input, according to Krashen, a learner
can move from his/her current level (i), to the level i+1, which is the next
level up in the natural order of acquisition. In other words, to progress in
the knowledge of the L2 it is necessary that the input the individual is
exposed to is at a slightly more advanced level than his/her present one.
We do not intend to get into a full-scale discussion of Krashen's theories
here (for this, see, for instance, McLaughlin, 1987) but we do need to
emphasise the obvious problem of defining both i and i+1.

Whereas the emphasis on the unconscious nature of language acquisition

proposed by Krashen has been questioned, the notion of comprehensible
input, however difficult it is to define, is one which continues to gain
acceptance.

48
In other considerations of the role of input in SLA, some authors considered
the possible importance that the frequency of certain forms in the target
language could have for input processing. Frequency, as Dulay, Burt and
Krashen (1982) have put it, is the number of times the individual hears or
sees a specific target language form. Theoretically, frequency would
increase the probability of appearance of those structures the individual is
"ready" to process, increasing at the same time the possibilities for the
individual to process them.

However, studies carried out by Dulay and Burt (1974) based on the
incidence of the frequency of morphological and syntactical structures,
showed the complexity of this phenomenon. While the production in learner
output of certain structures and not others -in spite of the same frequency
of input- were observed, other structures that were not even present in
input were also detected in output. The problem with the results of this
study is that the specific stage of development of each individual learner's
interlanguage was not taken into account. Thus, despite the frequency of
the forms, an individual learner would only process those his/her
interlanguage is ready to assimilate. Due to the limitations of studies of this
sort, the implications of the phenomenon of frequency in input are still
unclear and its effects difficult to delineate with precision.

Thus, it was proposed that both the quality and frequency of input, are
fundamental features necessary for input to be assimilated by the individual
and turned into part of his/her interlanguage. Evidently, these are things
that a classroom teacher can affect.

3.3. Input and intake

We have seen in the SLA chapter that input is not necessarily transformed
into intake. In this section we are going to look at some of the conditions
that facilitate this happening.

The individual needs exposure to a specific type of input if language

acquisition is to be facilitated. The question is, what should this input be
like? We will attempt to answer this question below.

Although, as we have seen, it is difficult to make an ideal characterisation

of the appropriate language data to include in input, we know at least one
of the features it has to include: the input has to be understood by the
individual. The individual's engagement with a message that is understood

49
will allow new elements present in the message to be incorporated. In other
words, learners need to understand the overall meaning of a message to
then be able to focus more closely on the actual linguistic forms used to
convey that message. As Van Patten concludes:

...only when input is easily understood can learners attend to form as part
of the intake process.
(1990:296)

Another feature that affects input being transformed into intake and making
learning possible, is that it should be specifically addressed to the
individual. That is to say, personalised input (Seliger 1983) will be more
effective than input that is not individually addressed to the listener.

A further characteristic of input was proposed to aid SLA by, among others,
Schachter (1983). This is the advisability of simplifying input, the
argument here being that simplification makes it easier for the individual to
recognise the units of form present in the input, and to observe how they
are combined and used. Knibbeler (1989) even asserted that a simplified
code is more useful than a native or near native model. Research has
shown that most EFL/ESL teachers do in fact modify their speech
automatically. It was pointed out that, mainly in the initial stages of the
learning process, it would be advisable to use concrete referents (what
has been called the "here and now" principle) to facilitate the understanding
of the message for learners. What is more, it is also important that input is
received in a positive atmosphere in order to foster a favourable affective
disposition in the individual. This, according to Ellis (1985) will increase the
likelihood of input being transformed into intake.

Let us summarise this section. Research pointed to the following factors as

having a direct bearing on the transformation of input into intake:

• Comprehensible input, in terms of both linguistic forms and ideational

content.

• Personalised utterances.

• Linguistically simplified language.

• The use of concrete referents.

• A positive learning environment.

50
3.4. Interaction
In the first part of this chapter we have looked at the learner as if he/she
were a passive recipient of input. As we know, learning a language includes
far more than merely receiving input, as we also produce language. In this
section we will be considering the role of the individual during his/her
contact with the target language, that is, the role of interaction. The main
debate as far as interaction is concerned is the extent to which being a
receptor is enough and the extent to which being a participant in
conversation is a necessary element for successful SLA. To consider this
question we will be dividing this section into two parts, which reflect the
process which the individual goes through during interaction: first we will
look at learner output, then we will look at how this may affect the
interlocutor and the subsequent adjustments the learner may need to make
in further output -the process of interaction.

3.5. Output
For some researchers, an initial silent phase, or silent period, when the
individual starts his/her learning process seemed to favour the pace and
quality of acquisition. An initial exposure to input -with no time limit- which
is merely receptive, would be offered before encouraging the learner to try
to produce messages in the second language. We will not discuss here the
implications of this silent period (see the treatment of methods in the
subject Methodological Approaches) because, although it is generally
accepted that it can have positive effects, many factors, such as the
individual's personality, his/her communicative needs in certain situations,
and so on, can mitigate against an initial silent period. The main question
is, what happens afterwards?

It is here that Krashen's theories found their most severe criticism. Krashen
had argued that producing the language was not necessary for acquisition
- listening (to comprehensible input) was enough. This opinion was contrary
to Swain's, who asserted in her Output Hypothesis that the most
important element in the learning process is comprehensible output:
receiving and understanding messages is not enough - learners have to
produce them in order for acquisition to take place. Swain (1985) showed
that children who had received immersion education attained high levels of
comprehension which were not matched by a similarly high level of
production. Swain suggests that the chances of successful language

51
acquisition are higher when the individual has the opportunity of organising
his/her output during interaction with an interlocutor.

Swain (1995: 125-126) made the case for output:

First, it is hypothesized that output promotes "noticing". That is to say, in

producing the target language (vocally or subvocally) learners may notice
a gap between what they want to say and what they can say, leading them
to recognize what they do not know, or know only partially. In other words,
under some circumstances, the activity of producing the target language
may prompt second language learners to consciously recognize some of
their linguistic problems...
A second way in which producing language may serve the language
learning process is through hypothesis testing. That is, producing output is
one way of testing a hypothesis about comprehensibility or linguistic well-
formedness...
Thirdly, as learners reflect upon their own target language use, their output
serves a metalinguistic function, enabling them to control and internalize
linguistic knowledge. My assumption at present is that there is theoretical
justification for considering a distinct metalinguistic function of output.

Output thus may be said to presuppose interaction. However, as we shall

see, there is some debate about exactly which type of interaction produces
the kind of output which facilitates language acquisition.

3.6. Negotiation
Related to the production of messages in a second language and the
process of acquisition, the situations in which the learner has to make
his/her output comprehensible are of special interest. This happens when
the interlocutor indicates that he/she does not understand the original
message that the learner wanted to communicate. Faced with the need to
modify his/her output, the learner, it is hypothesised, will try new structures
and forms and will exploit his/her interlanguage to the full in the effort to be
understood. Moreover, the resulting output will serve the purpose of
generating new messages addressed to the learner, that is, further
comprehensible input will be supplied. This element of negotiation that
appears with the conjunction of input and output leads us to a fundamental
part of the learning process: interaction.

52
The importance of interaction for the acquisition of a second/foreign
language was proposed by a great many studies. Many theorists (for
example Hatch 1983; Seliger 1983; Gass and Varonis 1989; Van Patten
1990, and Doughty 1991, among others) gave interaction a predominant
role in SLA, and claimed that its benefits can be listed as follows:

- Interaction allows the learner to practise his/her acquired linguistic

knowledge through output.

- The opportunities for trying to produce new morphological and syntactic

structures are increased, as are the possibilities for experimenting with and
hypothesising about language.

- Interaction generates input, procuring in this way more data about the
target language for the learner.

- Interaction facilitates the obtaining of personalised input, which increases

the individual's attention to the message.

- Because of the communicative nature of interaction, it is adapted to the

learner's linguistic level, being modified or simplified when the
understanding of the messages requires it.

- Interaction enables the learner to obtain "negative" input (Schachter

1983): whenever the attempt to communicate appears to be ineffective and
the meaning of the learner's message is unclear to the addressee, the
learner necessarily receives negative input which informs the speaker
about the existing communication problem. If this kind of input were not
present, the result would be the fossilisation of certain forms that do not
belong to the target language code.

- Interaction enables the acquisition of certain sociolinguistic and discursive

features inherent to communication.

In view of the importance attributed to interaction we are justified in asking

to what extent interaction in the target language affects the learning
process in terms of both "quality" of language and "speed" of acquisition.
Although we are as yet far from having a conclusive answer to this question
the indications from the studies suggest that learners who are involved in
more interactions show more proficiency sooner in the L2, and they have a
more "mature" error profile - that is, their interlanguage shows less mother
tongue influence.

53
In the meantime many researchers and many teachers proceed on the
assumption that interaction promotes acquisition. One voice urging caution
in this field is that of Pauline Foster. Foster (1998) suggests that some of
the claims made for the negotiation of meaning need to be looked at again.
Her own study which, unlike some of the seminal research in this particular
field, was carried out in actual language classrooms rather than under
laboratory conditions, suggests that students do not in fact engage in the
negotiation of meaning in task execution where it was hypothesised that
they would. This, she suggests, has implications for the tasks we devise -
a point we will return to later in this chapter.

3.7. Context
We have seen that interaction is widely considered a fundamental and
necessary feature of successful second language acquisition for the vast
majority of learners. We will now turn our attention to what it is that marks
out the limits of interaction: the context where the exposure to input takes
place. The importance of context in providing the social and cultural factors
which may affect the learner have already been covered in the
subject Individual Factors, and we will not be reiterating these here,
although we will be making a distinction between formal and informal
contexts.

Although what mainly concerns us as ELT teachers is the learning that

takes place in the classroom, we will also examine some of the features of
natural contexts that affect second language learning.

First of all, it would be useful to recap on the fundamental differences

between both contexts.

Reflective task 3.1.

Consider the main differences between the learning that takes place in a
formal (classroom) context and a natural context. Use the grid below as a
template for your answer.

54
 FORMAL, CLASSROOM CONTEXTS NATURAL CONTEXTS

Input

Physical constraints

Output

Interaction

To see the comments on this task you will find the "Assessment" section
of the subject (virtual campus).

Before we look at the specific features of input that can be observed in the
classroom, we need to bear in mind, as we mentioned before, that the
natural context can have an important positive effect on the acquisition
process. Dulay, Burt and Krashen noted that natural contact with the
language:

Triggers the subconscious acquisition of communication skills in that

language.
(1982:15)

although they also admitted that there are many factors that can limit its
positive effects, such as the limited possibilities of establishing
communication with second language speakers, difficulties in
communication or absence of a silent period in the initial stages of the
learning process. However, in spite of the possible limitations that natural
contexts may have, it is obvious that both the possibilities of obtaining input
and the opportunities for interaction using the second language are highly
superior; as such natural contexts are those that offer the richest
opportunities for successful language learning. However, this does not
mean that teaching in these contexts is not also necessary. As we will see,
there is evidence that points to the effectiveness of instruction in second
language learning in both natural and formal contexts.

3.7.1. The formal context

Formal contexts, as we established above, refer to classroom-type

situations where there is an explicit focus on the conscious learning of rules
and grammatical forms. Although the communicative potential of formal

55
contexts may be more limited than those in informal contextsis, they also
present certain advantages.

After reviewing the studies that addressed this matter, Long (1988)
concluded that formal instruction has positive effects on the process of
acquisition of a second language both from the point of view of the pace or
speed with which individuals learn the language - also corroborated by
Doughty (1991) - and their final competence. As regards this latter point, it
is even suggested that it would be impossible to reach a similar level to that
of the native speaker without instruction. However, certain reservations
need to be expressed on this point. We have seen, for example in previous
subjects, that factors such as the language spoken outside the classroom
and the age of the individual, among others, need to be taken into account
when considering what makes for successful SLA.

Long also noted that instruction does not seem to affect the order of
acquisition of the different elements of the language, except for during
limited periods of time and "in trivial ways" (1988:135).

A fundamental issue that affects the classroom context is that language is

an instrument for communication in the natural context, whilst in the formal
one, depending on the choice of focus, it may become the objective of
learning (Seliger 1983). However, researchers such as Krashen (1988),
Ellis (1985) and Seliger (1983) put forward the idea that the classroom
could combine both a formal and a natural focus, creating both a focus on
the targeted language forms, and a "social context" where language is also
used for communication.

Seliger (1983) asserted that language lessons offer more advantages to

individuals than natural contexts because in the former they feel "obliged"
to use the second language, not only in a formal sense but in order to
communicate as well. Real communicative uses of language, such as
solving problems, making comments or chatting, demand the 'realistic' use
of the second language, combining in this way both a formal and a
communicative dimension in a single context.

However, one feature of studies carried out in formal contexts is that the
setting is often an ESL environment. This has several implications: firstly,
learners tend not to share the same mother tongue, and thus have to resort
to the second language to interact (as opposed to the case of many, if not
most, ELT contexts where there is a common mother tongue), and
secondly, outside the classroom, the ESL environment will offer almost

56
limitless communicative possibilities for the learner to engage in, in the
target language.

An interesting question is, therefore, what happens where there is a

common mother tongue, and very limited exposure, if any, to the target
language outside of the formal classroom context?

If it is accepted that the role of interaction in the process of second

language acquisition is essential, then it would seem that SLA in many
classroom contexts may well be doomed to failure. Learners may decide to
interact only in the L1 due to sharing a common mother tongue, and even
if they do decide to interact in the L2, meaningful interaction may in any
case be curbed by the activity types typical of the formal classroom. But
despite these not inconsiderable drawbacks, learners do learn the L2 in
formal EFL classrooms, although obviously to varying degrees of
proficiency.

Thus the hypothesis that interaction in the classroom is the single most
important variable in formal contexts (Ellis 1985) must be interpreted
cautiously, because, although it is possible that the degree of participation
in interactions in the target language is related to "success" in learning, this
could also be due to a series of other, interrelated factors. Obvious
candidates would be the degree of motivation a learner possessed,
individual aptitude and learning style, the specific social context and so on
(see the subject Individual Factors for a review of the main factors which
influence SLA).

3.7.2. Analysing the formal context: research in the classroom

A lot of research has been carried out into what actually happens in the
formal classroom context. This move to observe, document and analyse
classroom behaviour has been motivated by the desire to improve
pedagogical practice. If we can analyse what happens, and how this affects
learning, we may be able to judge what is effective (and what is ineffective)
teaching, or so the reasoning goes.

The roles played by input and output - in other words, interaction - in

promoting successful learning have been examined through what is
called classroom process research (Gaies 1983). Three main research
areas have been focused on:

- teacher talk;

57
- interaction analysis;

- discourse analysis.

We will recap and expand on each of them briefly.

3.7.2.1. Teacher talk

You will recall that the "special" language used by teachers in the
classroom, called teacher talk, has been considered a fundamental
element for analysis in the formal classroom context. This is hardly
surprising, given the supposed importance of input and interaction in the
process of second language learning.

The importance of the type of language used by teachers has been studied
by many researchers, and the principles of analysis are very similar to
those of foreigner talk studies -which we will summarise later on-, as both
are considered registers with specific formal and interactive features. It is
important to note that the studies carried out in the area of teacher talk have
been conducted both in the context of foreign language lessons and other
lessons where the second language was used as a means of instruction
(content teaching). The comparison between both situations did not bring
up any significant differences (Ellis 1985).

In short, what are the features of teacher talk? In the subject Classroom
Management we summarised some of the formal features of teacher talk,
in which speech is modified or adjusted in very specific ways. Here we will
be taking a more general theoretical view of teacher talk, and we will
summarise the main features of teacher talk in point form below.

- Teachers' speech adjustments are produced in a generalised way; they

are a common feature of both experienced and inexperienced teachers
(Pica and Long 1986).

- A teacher normally addresses many learners at the same time. The

teacher tends to modify his/her speech to adopt a "medium" register, that
is, a register which he/she considers to be comprehensible to the majority
of learners. This means that the individual learner is deprived of
personalised input, which, as we saw earlier enhances the possibilities of
successful language learning.

58
- Related to the above point, we find that the elements of negotiation
necessary for the understanding of the message, and which are present in
personalised, one-to-one interactions, are limited in the classroom (Pica
and Long 1986). This could cause problems of understanding - with their
obvious implications for learning - in many individuals.

- Formal speech modifications by teachers can be detected with learners

at all language levels (Hakansson 1986), although the level of complexity
of the language used by the teacher will change according to the
individual's level. That is, the higher the level, the more complex the
language used by the teacher is (Gaies 1977).

- Generally speaking, speech modifications that are 'ungrammatical' are

not observed. Rather, less complexity in aspects such as sentence length,
subordination or expansions of the nominal phrase (Hakansson 1986) are
to be seen.

3.7.2.2. Interaction analysis

If, as we have seen, the features of language which teachers use can have
an important effect on the learning process, it has also been suggested that
teachers are only one part of the communicative situation. There is also the
individual who is learning the target language, who has a role as
interlocutor. Thus an analysis that does not contemplate all the participants
in a communicative act, as well as the features of the resulting interaction
is, by definition, very limited.

Interaction analysis tries to broaden the focus of classroom process

research by including the learner in the equation. We examined the main
models used in interaction analysis, and identified some of the weaknesses
involved in this area of research in a fair amount of detail in Classroom
Management, and it is not our intention to reiterate that information again
here. Suffice it to say that the attempts to analyse the uses of language
within the classroom context face the problem that, although they all can
be grouped under the common heading of interaction analysis, the variety
of systems and categories used make any comparison and hence any
generalisation impossible.

59
3.7.2.3. Discourse analysis

Another more focused attempt to analyse classroom contexts is through

discourse analysis. This, as with interaction analysis, takes into account all
the participants in the interaction, although it adds the new consideration
of observing not only the language produced by interlocutors but the way
in which this language is combined to constitute more complex units of
discourse.

In terms of classroom discourse we can distinguish between four basic

types of target language use (McTear 1975):

1. Mechanical: there is no communicative exchange.

2. Meaningful: language is contextualised but there is no exchange of real

information.

3. Pseudo-communicative: there is some information exchange but in a

different way from what would happen outside the classroom, in natural
contexts.

4. Real communicative: natural and spontaneous language use.

Despite the existence of McTear's four possible variations, the study of

classroom discourse has tended to focus on the forms that interactions
normally take. Starting from the consideration that most foreign language
lessons are dominated by the figure of the teacher, investigations such as
the ones by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), or Sinclair and Brazil (1982),
noted that classroom discourse usually presents a profile consisting of
three different phases:

1. The teacher's initiation of the exchange (I).

2. The student's response (R).

3. The teacher's feedback (F).

To Coulthard and Sinclair's IRF sequence McTear (1975) added the

possibility of a fourth phase: when the learner notices that the teacher's
intervention suggests or requires another response.

60
What, we might ask, are the implications of the organisation of discourse -
centred on the figure of the teacher - into these three (or four) phases for
second language learning in a classroom context?

Reflective task 3.2.

What do you think the effects of IRF exchanges on SLA are? Briefly
consider each of the following areas in your answer:

- Input

- Output

- Negotiation

- The effectiveness of the feedback stage in IRF

To see the comments on this task you will find the "Assessment" section
of the subject (virtual campus).

Within the field of discourse analysis a fair amount of attention has been
paid to the role of feedback in the learning process. In accordance with the
rather more theoretical bias of this chapter, we will now look in more depth
at the role of feedback in SLA.

3.7.2.4. Feedback and SLA

According to many of the studies conducted in this area, the role of

feedback in the learning process is quite complex. Both Chun et al. (1982)
and Seliger (1983) suggested that in informal contexts content is more
important than form and consequently there is little feedback in the form of
error correction.

In the classroom, however, the situation is quite different because, as we

have seen, feedback is usually always present, playing in some cases a
doubtful role as a facilitating factor for learning. Feedback addressed to the
individual, Seliger (1983) claimed, can promote the individual's revision of
his/her interlanguage, by making him/her reformulate his/her hypotheses

61
about the L2. This begs the question of how useful it is for the individual to
receive feedback which is not personalised and is addressed to the group.

However, others argued that feedback constitutes a vital part of the

learning process. Vigil and Oller (1976) claimed that the role of feedback is
not merely to provide positive or negative information about the target
language, but that it represents an affective support to conversation, and
can be positive, neutral or negative, as it provides the stimulus for learners'
attempts to revise their production where necessary. As we saw when we
considered the role of output in an earlier section in this chapter, this factor
has considerable importance in terms of promoting L2 acquisition. Seen in
this light, the value of feedback lay not only in its formal aspects, but also
in its motivational dimension.

The research also suggested that, that personalised feedback which is

directly addressed to the individual, offering affective support, is the most
useful and appropriate.

3.7.2.5. The task

Another aspect which is important to consider in the classroom context is

the role of the task in channelling interaction. This is because the task
determines both the type of language the individual will receive and the
language he/she will produce. It has been claimed that the most
appropriate task type for language learning is one that demands a mutual
exchange of information, and thus promotes negotiation. Young and
Doughty (1987), for example, insisted on the fact that this exchange of
information among individuals be 'genuine'. This lead us to the obvious
question of what 'genuine' tasks look like.

Studies claimed that the tasks most likely to promote negotiation,

interaction and hence, acquisition, are the following:

- Information-gap tasks (Pica et al. 1989).

- Problem-solving tasks (Duff 1986).

- Debates (Duff 1986).

According to Pica and Doughty's study, one task type that is widely used in
communicative approaches -decision-making tasks- is considered to be a

62
low generator of language exchanges and hence inadvisable for acquisition
and accordingly for practice in the classroom.

3.8. Input, interaction and teaching

We have seen that there are some important differences between natural
and formal contexts for a learner when learning a second language. To
return to the classroom context, we will now take a look at some of the
suggestions that have been made to make up for the afore-mentioned lack
of opportunities for interaction and negotiation of input in the classroom.
Proposed solutions include a series of methodological changes such as
promoting interaction in more reduced groups where individuals can
negotiate meaning (Pica and Long 1986). However, Pica and Doughty
(1985) also remarked on the rush to include endless amounts of group work
in CLT, and questioned the widespread belief among EFL theorists and
practitioners that group work necessarily leads to the negotiation of
meaning.

Another attempt to improve the situation in the classroom from the point of
view of input, is based on a suggestion of Edmonson's (1986). Edmonson
stressed the high level of ambiguity that characterises language
classrooms. This ambiguity is frequently present in the responses, in the
form of feedback, that teachers give to students, who may be unclear about
what the teacher is signalling in feedback. Thus, Edmonson suggested, the
teacher needs to try to be clear and transparent in his/her speech, as
feedback is one way of facilitating second language learning. If, as it has
been pointed out, simplified input can facilitate the understanding and
acquisition of the target language it would be interesting to try to use it in
the classroom and observe its effects (Chaudron 1988; Hakansson 1986).

Recent detailed analysis shows how the interaction with the teacher can
facilitate acquisition. Bentley, K. (2010) shows how teachers can 'scaffold'
language in order to support both language input and output. These
techniques presuppose that the context is communication of real meaning,
i.e. the learner has something to say, or to understand, and through their
scaffolding techniques, a teacher can help the learner communicate it in an
appropriate format.

Another approach to providing learners with exposure to the L2 in the

classroom involves teaching other subjects (e.g. history, literature, science
and so on) through the second language. This was known initially

63
as content teaching, and had language based objectives. It is more
common now to integrate language and content in teaching, aiming to fulfil
objectives in both areas, through task-based content and language
integrated learning (CLIL). You can refer to the chapter on CLIL for a
thorough coverage of this area. Studies into the success of SLA in these
teaching contexts have been fairly widespread, because they present
certain similarities to natural contexts, particularly as far as the elements of
negotiation are concerned (Ellis 1985). Hauptman et al. (1985), for
example, found that affective factors played a major role in success in
these contexts. They pointed out, as examples of this, how much greater
students' satisfaction is when immersed in real communicative situations
using the second language, which includes solving problems in the second
language, and how students are more prepared psychologically to face
situations that require the use of the second language. Coyle, D., Hood, P.
Marsh, D, P. (2010) explain how far CLIL falls from a more traditional
grammar based approach to language learning:

Neither is CLIL an attempt to disguise traditional language learning by

embedding systematic grammatical progression of the target language in
a different type of subject content.

Why is this significant for the language learning contexts we act in? In the
subject SLA it was noted that accounts of language acquisition need to take
into account the complexity and variety of multilingual contexts and
particularly the increasing number of school age children who learn some
curricular content through a vehicular language, at ages when they are still
developing mastery of all of their languages.

Usage-based and emergentist accounts of acquisition may soon be able to

point at the variables that need to be understood better in english as an
additional language contexts, as learners are observed learning through
using the language. This is especially relevant for CLIL contexts which
suppose language use to be a necessary condition for language learning.

Finally, it is important to bear in mind the relationship between a learner's

exposure to input and interaction, and individual factors such as
personality, cognitive style, attitude and motivation, among others (see the
subject Individual Factors for an overview of this area). In many cases input
in the L2 and opportunities for interaction are present in the learner's
environment, and it is the individual who needs to be able to seize this
chance for accelerating his/her own learning process. Let us briefly focus

64
our attention on the types of learners who are more likely to seize
opportunities for exposure to the target language in the classroom itself.

The hypothesis we are concerned with here is clearly expressed by

Chaudron (1988:100). Remember that in this chapter we have already
considered the fact that the teacher's input may be a fundamental factor in
aiding a learner's SLA in formal contexts. Therefore, the counterpoint
notion, as Chaudron puts it, is that:

...those learners who initiate interactions that result in speech directed to

them will derive more benefit from the input than if they are exposed to the
input in a more vicarious manner.

Seliger (1977) carried out a study in which he analysed the number of

initiations of interactions in the classroom by individual learners, in order to
test this hypothesis. Seliger distinguished between two types of learners:
those who generate more input in the target language and those who
generate less, high input generators and low input
generators respectively. He described the characteristic behaviour of
each as follows:

Some students, the high input generators, are actively involved and, like
the child, cause input to be directed at them by calling out, answering out
of turn, and working out answers to questions or drill cues directed to
others. Such students can often be observed talking to themselves during
language drills. Still other students, the low input generators, sit quietly but
rarely and in some extreme cases never participate unless specifically
asked to do so.
(1977:266-7)

As might be expected, high input generators are the ones who, according
to this study, were more proficient in the target language in practically every
aspect.

However, several subsequent studies (e.g. Day 1984; Strong 1983) have
problematised what initially seemed to be a straightforward relationship
between high input generating behaviour and successful SLA. Factors
such as the learner's age, the social context for learning and cultural factors
were all seen to have an important effect on initiating behaviour.

Chaudron summarised the situation in these words:

65
A direct relationship between learners' initiating behaviors and
development in proficiency is not supported by the preceding studies. Yet
it does appear that more subtle distinctions in the factors involved, for
example, functional types of initiations, and social or age relationships, may
influence the amount of initiation and interlocutors' response to initiating
behaviors. Cultural differences may furthermore influence the extent to
which particular learners engage in classroom interaction at all. With such
limitations, it seems inappropriate to regard initiating behaviors and the
presumed input generated from them as the ultimate factors responsible
for language acquisition in classrooms.
(1988:106)

Thus it would seem that the picture is a lot more complex than it appears
at first glance.

3.9. Conclusion
We started this subject with the aim of giving an overview of some of the
research into Second Language Acquisition in order to see its implications
for the classroom. In chapter one, we considered what an interlanguage
was, in chapter two we examined the importance of conscious learning,
noticing and restructuring for SLA. Now, in chapter three we have focused
on the learner's developing IL in a wider context: that of formal versus
natural contexts. We looked at how input and interaction can aid successful
second language learning, looking at many pointers to classroom practice.

As we have discussed, there are challenges emerging to the very nature

of the cognitivist focus on interlanguage we have followed in this subject,
with sociolinguistics suggesting that second language socialization may be
more crucial for second language acquisition than these accounts allow,
and usage based linguistics questioning the very concept of a recognizable
interlanguage detectable through output, and therefore the validity of the
studies based on its observation.These are areas which we will see many
developments in the coming years.

However, the cognitivist accounts of the processes involved in second

language acquisition that we have looked at are very powerful, and are able
to highlighted many areas of instruction which can be managed by a
teacher to promote second language acquisition, and which we have
focused on throughout the subject. Ellis (2008) has given a recent and
useful summary of these. It gives a good overview from the cognitive

66
perspective of principles that research comes up with regarding minimum
conditions/principles needed for successful SLA with instruction. In
recognition of the limits of these accounts, Ellis (ibid) concedes:

These general principles have drawn on a variety of theoretical

perspectives, although predominantly on what Lantolf (1996) refers to as
the computational model of second language learning. This model has its
limitations and is open to criticism, in particular that it is not socially
sensitive because it fails to acknowledge the importance of social context
and social relations in the language learning process. It would be clearly
useful to attempt to formulate a set of principles based on the broader
conceptualization of second language acquisition-one that emphasizes the
importance of the social as well as the cognitive aspects. (Ibid)

Despite this concession, they stand as a useful recent statement of the

implications drawn from research from a cognitive perspective on
interlanguage. and a useful tool for teachers to use to reflect on their
classroom practice. Principles for instructed SLA (Ellis 2008)

- Principle 1: Instruction needs to ensure that learners develop both a rich

repertoire of formulaic expressions and a rule-based competence.

- Principle 2: Instruction needs to ensure that learners focus

predominantly on meaning.

- Principle 3: Instruction needs to ensure that learners also focus on form.

- Principle 4: Instruction needs to focus on developing implicit knowledge

of the second language while not neglecting explicit knowledge.

- Principle 5: Instruction needs to take into account the learner's built-in

syllabus.

- Principle 6: Successful instructed language learning requires extensive

second language input.

- Principle 7: Successful instructed language learning also requires

opportunities for output.

- Principle 8: The opportunity to interact in the second language is central

to developing second language proficiency.

67
- Principle 9: Instruction needs to take account of individual differences in
learners.

- Principle 10: In assessing learners' second language proficiency, it is

important to examine free as well as controlled production.

We feel that it would be useful for you to draw some conclusions from this
chapter, which relate specifically to an EFL teaching context, in a final task.

Reflective task 3.3.

Imagine that you need to write some advice for a new EFL teacher, telling
him/ her what he/she should do in the classroom in order to improve his/her
students' SLA through input and interaction.

To see the comments on this task you will find the "Assessment" section
of the subject (virtual campus).

3.10. Appendix
[1] APPENDIX 3.1: The formal features of foreigner talk based on Hatch
(1978; 1983) and Long (1981; 1983).

3.11. Suggestions for further reading

[1] Coyle, D., Hood, P., Marsh, D, P. (2010): CLIL Content and Language
Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.

[2] Ellis, R. (1997): Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. Chapter 9.

[3] Ellis, R. (2008): The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:

Oxford University Press. Chapter 13 & 14.

[4] Gass, S. & Madden, C. (1985): Input in Second Language

Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Newbury House.

[5] Krashen, S. (1985): The Input Hypothesis: Issues and

Implications. London: Longman.

68
3.12. Web reading
[1] Ellis, R. (2008): Ferguson Fellow, Center for Applied Linguistics.
Retrieved 15. 12. 2012 from:
http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/integratedcontent.html

[2] Mangubhai, F. (2006) “What do we know about learning and teaching

second languages: Implications for teaching” in Asian EFL Journal, Volume
8, Issue 3, Article 3. Retrieved 15. 12. 11 from:
http://asian-efl-journal.com/Sept_06_fm.php

This article gives an accessible list of insights from second language

acquisition research that will be of interest to a teacher.

[3] Myles. F. Second Language Acquisition research: its significance for

learning and teaching issues. Southampton LLAS Subject Centre for
Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies. Retrieved 18.12.11 from:
http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/421

This article will give you a good overview of the state of the field. Myles
observes: - The picture emerging from research into second language
development is, unsurprisingly, highly complex, and many factors have
been identified as playing a role. Here I will outline more systematically the
relationship which is emerging between SLA research and language
pedagogy at the beginning of this century.

[4] Thornbury, S. Language as an emergent system. Retrieved 18.12.2011

from: http://www.thornburyscott.com/st_1.htm#Articles

This article gives a clear overview of the significance of theories about

language as an Emergent system.

[5] Thornbury, S. (2009) “Slow Release Grammar” English teaching

Professional Issue 61, March 2009. Retrieved through Scott Thornbury’s
own site 18.12.11: http://www.thornburyscott.com/st_1.htm#Articles

This gives broad suggestions for syllabusing issues round grammar based
on the view of the second language as an emerging system.

69
Bibliography

Updated bibliography

[1] Afitska, O. (2015). Role of focus-on-form instruction, corrective

feedback and uptake in second language classrooms: some insights from
recent second language acquisition research. The Language Learning
Journal, 43 (1), 57-73.

[2] Barron, A. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatics: From use to acquisition to

second language pedagoy. Language teaching: The international
abstracting journal for language teachers and applied linguistics, 45 (1),
44-63.

[3] Beeching, K. y Woodfield, H. (Eds.) (2015). Researching

Sociopragmatic Variability. Perspectives from Variational, Interlanguage
and Contrastive Pragmatics. Nueva York: Palgrave Macmillan.

[4] Berwick, R. C., Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2013).
Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in cognitive sciences,
17(2), 89-98. Retrieved 18-12-2016 from http://alpha-
leonis.lids.mit.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/nrn-bolhuis-
berwick-friederici-2012.pdf

[5] DeAnda, S., Arias, N., Poulin-Dubois, D., Zesiger, P. y Friend, M.

(2016). Minimal second language exposure, SES, and early word
comprehension: New evidence from a direct assessment. Bilingualism:
Language and cognition, 19 (1), 162-180.

[6] Díaz Ducca, J. A. (2012). Effects of affective variables on L2 fossilization

in adults: A critical literature review. Innovaciones educativas, 14 (19), 64-
74. Retrieved 18-12-2016
from http://201.196.149.98/revistas/index.php/innovaciones/article/viewFil
e/640/535.

[7] Fuad Selvi, A. (2011). Key concepts in ELT: The non-native speaker
teacher. ELT J, 65, 187-189. Retrieved 18-12-2016
from https://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/2/187.full.pdf+html

70
[8] González Davies, M. (2016). "Children's Literature and Plurilingualism
in a teacher training programme a CLIL approach focusing on Didactics
(FOD)". Edetania: estudios y propuestas socio-educativas, 49, 91-106.
Retrieved 18-12-2016
from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5593105

[9] Granger, S. (2015). Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A

reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1 (1), 7-24.

[10] Grim, F. (2011). "Does Being an L2 Native-Speaking Teacher

Influence L2 Use?" The International Journal of Foreign Language
Teaching, 6(1), 2-5. Retrieved 18-12-2016
from http://www.tprstories.com/ijflt/IJFLTWinter2011.pdf

[11] Han, Z. (2013). Forty years later: Updating the fossilization

hypothesis. Language teaching: The international abstracting journal for
language teachers and applied linguistics, 46 (2), 133-171.

[12] Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the

classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development.
Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11-33. Retrieved 18-12-2016
from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1362168810383328

[13] Lázaro, M. A. y Azpilicueta, R. (2015). Investigating negotiation of

meaning in EFL children with very low levels of proficiency. IJES,
International Journal of English Studies, 15 (1), 1-21.

[14] Lessard Clouston, M. (2011) Focusing on Form: A teachers research

update on form-focused instruction. CARL Linguistics Journal, 1, 1-9.
Retrieved 13-09-2012
from: http://biola.academia.edu/MichaelLessardClouston/Papers/852514/
Focusing_on_form_A_teachers_research_update_on_form-
focused_instruction

[15] Lyster, R. y Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies

in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (2), 265-302.

[16] Rebuschat, P. (Ed.) (2015). Implicit and Explicit Learning of

Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

71
[17] Rezaei, S. Mozaffari, F. y Hatef, A. (2011). Corrective feedback in SLA:
Classroom Practice and Future Directions. International Journal of English
Linguistics, 1 (1), 21-29.

[18] Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective

feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
32 (2), 203-234.

[19] Spada, N. (2015). SLA research and L2 pedagogy: Misapplications

and questions of relevance. Language Teaching, 48 (1), 69-81.

[20] Tarone, E. (2015). Second Language Acquisition in Applied

Linguistics: 1925-2015 and beyond. Applied Linguistics, 36 (4), 444-453.

[21] Thompson, G. L. y Brown, A. (2012). Interlanguage variation: the

influence of monitoring and contextualization on L2 phonological
production. VIAL, Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 107-
132. Retrieved 18-12-2016 from http://vialjournal.webs.uvigo.es/pdf/Vial-
2012-Article5.pdf.

Bibliographical references

[1] Corder, P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

[2] Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 11 (4), 367-383.

[3] Ellis, R. (2008). Principles of instructed second language acquisition.

Ferguson Fellow, Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved 15-12- 2012
from: http://www.cal.org/content/download/1553/16478/file/Principlesof
InstructedSecondLanguageAcquisition.pdf

[4] Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

[5] Faerch, C. y Kasper, G. (Eds.) (1983). Strategies in Interlanguage

Communication. Londres: Longman.

[6] Freed, B. F. (1981). Foreigner talk, baby talk, native talk. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28, 19-39.

72
[7] Gass, S. y Madden, C. G. (1985). Input in Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Newbury House.

[8] Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications.

Londres: Longman.

[9] Krashen, S. (1988). Second Language Acquisition and Second

Language Learning. Hempstead: Prentice Hall International.

[10] Mangubhai, F. (2006) "What do we know about learning and teaching

second languages: Implications for teaching" in Asian EFL Journal, Volume
8, Issue 3, Article 3. Retrieved 15-12-2011 from https://goo.gl/WS3Rxy

[11] Myles, F. (2004). "Second language acquisition (SLA) research: its

significance for learning and teaching issue." In Canning, J. "Disability and
residence abroad." Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area
Studies Good Practice Guide. Retrieved 18-12-2011
from: http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/421

[12] Seliger, H. (1983). Learner Interaction in the Classroom and its Effect
on Language Acquisition. En H. Seliger y M. Long (Eds.), Classroom
Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House.

[13] Selinker, L. y Lamendella, J. (1978). Two perspectives on

interlanguage learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 3, 143-191.

[14] Thornbury, S. (2008) Language as an emergent system. Retrieved 16-

10-2012 from: http://www.scottthornbury.com/articles.html

Bibliography of cited sources

[1] Adjemian, C. H. (1976): On the Nature of Interlanguage

Systems. Language Learning, 26: 297-320.

[2] Andersen, R. (Ed.) (1984): Second Languages. A cross-linguistic

perspective. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

[3] Batstone, R. (1994): Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[4] Beebe, L. (1980): Sociolinguistic variation and style shifting in second

language acquisition. Language Learning, 30/2: 433-447.

73
[5] Beebe, L. & Zuengler, J. (1986): Accommodation theory: An explanation
for style shifting in second language dialects, in N. Wolfson & E. Judd
(Eds.). Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.

[6] Bentley, K. (2010): The TKT Module. Unit 2 Cambridge University

Press.

[7] Berman, R. A. (1984): Cross-linguistic first language perspectives on

second language acquisition research, in R. Andersen's (Ed.) Second
Languages. A cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury
House.

[8] Bialystok, E. (1990): Communication Strategies: A Psychological

Analysis of Second-Language Use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

[9] Butterworth, G. & Hatch. E. (1978): Some constraints on models of

language production, in E. Hatch (ed.) Second Language Acquisition.
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

[10] Chaudron, C. (1988): Second Language Classrooms: Research on

Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[11] Chomsky, N. (1969): The Acquisition of Syntax in Children from five to

ten. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.

[12] Chun, A. et al. (1982): Errors, interaction and correction: A study of

native-nonnative conversations. TESOL Quarterly, 16/4: 537-547.

[13] Corder, S. P. (1967): Language-learner language, in J. C. Richards

(Ed.) Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning: Issues and
Approaches. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

[14] Corder, S. P. (1978): Strategies of communication. AFinLa 23. Also in

Corder, 1981.

[15] Corder, S. P. (1980): Formal Simplicity and Functional Simplification,

in R. Andersen's (ed.) Second Languages. A cross-linguistic perspective.
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

[16] Corder, P. (1981): Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

74
[17] Corder, P. (1983): Strategies of Communication, in C. Faerch & G.
Kasper (Eds.). Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. New York:
Longman.

[18] Coyle, D., Hood, P., Marsh, D, P. (2010): CLIL Content and Language
Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.

[19] Crookes, G. (1989): Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition. 11/4: 367-383.

[20] D'Anglejan, A. (1978): Language Learning in and out of Classrooms,

in Richards, (ed.) Understanding Second and Foreign Language
Learning. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

[21] Day, R. (1984): Student participation in the ESL classroom, or some

imperfections of practice. Language Learning, 34: 69-102.

[22] Doff, A. & Jones, C. (1991): Language in Use: A Pre-Intermediate

Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[23] Doughty, C. (1991): Second language instruction does make a

difference. Evidence from an empirical study of second language
relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13/4: 431-470.

[24] Duff, P. (1986): Another look at interlanguage talk, in R. Day (ed.)

1986. Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition.
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

[25] Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974): You can't learn without goofing, in J.
Richards' (ed.) Error Analysis, Perspectives on Second Language
Acquisition. New York: Longman.

[26] Dulay, H.; Burt, M. & Krashen, S. (1982): Language Two. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

[27] Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974): Errors and strategies in child second
language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 8/2: 129-138.

[28] Edmonson, W. (1986): Some ways in which the teacher brings errors
into being, in G. Kasper's (ed.) Learning, Teaching and Communication in
the Foreign Language Classroom. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

75
[29] Ellis, R. (1985): Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

[30] Ellis, R. (1993): The structural syllabus and second language

acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27/1: 91-113.

[31] Ellis, R. (1997): Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

[32] Ellis, R. (2008): The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

[33] Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1974): Is second language learning like the

first? TESOL Quarterly, 8/2:111-128.

[34] Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (1983): Strategies in Interlanguage

Communication. London: Longman.

[35] Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1986): Strategic competence in foreign

language teaching, in Kaspar (ed.) 1986.

[36] Foster, P. (1998): A classroom perspective on the negotiation of

meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19/1: 1-23.

[37] Freed, B. F. (1981): Foreigner talk, baby talk, native talk. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28: 19-39.

[38] Gaies, S. (1977): The nature of linguistic input in formal second

language learning: linguistic and communicative strategies, in H. Brown, C.
Yorio and R. Crymer (Eds.). On TESOL ´77. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.

[39] Gaies, S. (1983): The investigation of Language Classroom

Processes. TESOL Quarterly, 17/2: 205-218.

[40] Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1989): Incorporated Repairs in Nonnative

Discourse, in M. R. Eisenstain's (Ed.) The Dynamic Interlanguage. New
York: Plenum Press.

[41] Gass, S. & Madden, C. G. (1985): Input in Second Language

Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Newbury House.

[42] Hakansson, G. (1986): Quantitative studies of teacher talk, in Kaspar

(ed.) 1986.

76
[43] Harmer, J. (1990): The Practice of English Language
Teaching. London: Longman.

[44] Hatch, E. (1978): Discourse analysis and second language acquisition,

in E. Hatch (Ed.) Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury
House.

[45] Hatch, E. (1983): Simplified Input and Second Language Acquisition,

in Anderson (Ed.) Pidginization and Creolization as Language Acquisition.
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

[46] Hauptman, P.; Leblanc, R. & Wesche, M. (Eds.) (1985): Second

Language Performance Testing. Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa
Press.

[47] Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (1985): Modelling and Assessing

Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

[48] Jain, M. P. (1974): Error analysis: source, cause and significance, in

J. Richards Error Analysis. Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition.
Harlow, Essex: Longman.

[49] James, C. (1971): The exculpation of applied linguistics, in G. Nickel

(ed.) Papers in Contrastive Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

[50] Johns, A. P. (1980): Approximative languages and language learning

situations. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 8/3.

[51] Jordens, P. (1980): Interlanguage research: interpretation and

explanation. Language Learning, 30: 195-207.

[52] Kasper, G. (1986): Learning, Teaching and Communication in the

Foreign Language Classroom. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

[53] Kellerman, E. (1977): Towards a characterization of the strategies of

transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2: 58-
145.

[54] Kellerman, E. (1984): The empirical evidence for the influence of L1 in

interlanguage, in A. Davies, C. Criper & A. P. R. Howatt
(Eds.). Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

77
[55] Krashen, S. (1977): Some issues relating to the Monitor Model, in H.
Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.). On TESOL'77: 144-158.

[56] Krashen, S. (1984) Second Language Acquisition and Second

Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

[57] Krashen, S. (1985): The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications.

London: Longman.

[58] Krashen, S. (1988): Second Language Acquisition and Second

Language Learning. H. Hempstead: Prentice Hall International.

[59] Labov, W. (1970): The Study of Language in Social Context. Studium

Generale, 23: 30-87.

[60] Lantolf, J. & Ahmed, M. (1989): Psycholinguistic perspectives on

interlanguage variation: A Vygotskian analysis, in S. Gass, C. Madden, D.
Preston, & L. Selinker (Eds.). Variation in Second Language Acquisition:
Psycholinguistic Issues. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

[61] Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991): Second language acquisition research:

Staking out the territory. TESOL Quarterly, 25/2: 315-350.

[62] Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997): Chaos/complexity science and second

language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18/2: 141-165.

[63] Larsen-freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991): An Introduction to Second

Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman. Chapter 4.

[64] Lenneberg, E. (1967): Biological foundations of language. New York:

Wiley.

[65] Littlewood, W. (1984): Foreign and Second Language

Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[66] Long, M. (1981): Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language

Learning, 31: 135-157.

[67] Long, M. (1983): Native speaker/ Non-native speaker conversation and

the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4: 126-141.

78
[68] Long, M. (1988): Instructed interlanguage development, in L. Beebe
(Ed.) Issues in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury
House.

[69] Long, M. (1990): Maturational constraints in language

development. Second Language Acquisition, 12: 251-186.

[70] Long, M. (1990): The least a second language acquisition theory needs
to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24/4: 649-666.

[71] McLaughlin, B. (1990): Restructuring. Applied Linguistics 11/2: 113-

128.

[72] McTear, M. (1975): Structure and categories of foreign language

teaching sequences, in R. Allwright (ed.) Working Papers: Language
Teaching Classroom Research. Essex: University of Essex, Department of
Language and Linguistics.

[73] Meisel, J. (1980): Linguistic simplification, in Felix (ed.) Second

Language Development: Trends and Issues. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

[74] Mohamed, S. & Acklam, R. (1992): Beginner's Choice. London:

Longman.

[75] Naiman, N.; Fröhlich, M.; Stern, H. & Todesco, A. (1978): The Good
Language Learner. Research in Education Series No 7. Toronto: The
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

[76] Nemser, W. (1971): Approximative systems of foreign language

learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 9: 115-123.

[77] Oxford, R. (2011) Teaching and Researching: Language Learning

Strategies. Longman.

[78] Perdue, C. (1984): Second Language Acquisition by Adult Immigrants:

a Field Manual. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

[79] Pica, T.; Holliday, L.; Lewis, N. & Morgenthaler, L. (1989):

Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the
learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11: 63-90.

79
[80] Pica, T. & Long, M. (1986): The linguistic and controversial
performance of experienced and inexperienced teachers, in R. Day
(ed.) Talking to Learn. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

[81] Plann, S. (1977): Acquiring a second language in an immersion

situation, in H. Brown, C. Yorio & R. Crymes (Eds.). On TESOL'77.
Washington D.C.: TESOL.

[82] Richards, J. C. (1971): Error analysis and second language

strategies. Language Sciences, 17: 12-22.

[83] Richards, J. C. (1974): Error Analysis. Perspectives on Second

Language Acquisition. Harlow, Essex: Longman.

[84] Richards, J. C. (1985): The Context of Language Teaching,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[85] Richards, J.; Platt, J. & Weber, H. (1986): Longman Dictionary of

Applied Linguistics. London: Longman.

[86] Saleemi, A. P. (1989): Inputs for second language

acquisition. IRAL, 27: 173-191.

[87] Scarcella, R. & Higa, C. (1981): Input, negotiation and age differences
in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 31: 409-437.

[88] Schachter, J. & Celce-murcia, M. (1983): Some reservations

concerning error analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 11/4: 441-51.

[89] Schmidt, R. W., & Frota, S. N. (1986): Developing Basic

Conversational Ability in a Case Study of an Adult Learner of Portuguese,
in R. Day (Ed.) Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language
Acquisition (pp. 237-319). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

[90] Schmidt, R. W. (1990): The Role of Consciousness in Second

Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 11/2: 129-158.

[91] Schumann, D. (1991): The acculturation model for second language

acquisition, in R. Gingras (Ed.) Second Language Acquisition and Foreign
Language Teaching. Arlington, VA.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

[92] Scovel, T. (1998): Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

80
[93] Scrivener, J. (1994): Learning Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.

[94] Seliger, H. (1977): Does practice make perfect? A study of the

interaction patterns and L2 competence. Language Learning, 27: 263-278.

[95] Seliger, H. (1983): Learner Interaction in the Classroom and its Effect
on Language Acquisition, in H. Seliger and M. Long (Eds.). Classroom
Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House.

[96] Selinker, L. & Lamendella, J. (1978): Two perspectives on

interlanguage learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 3: 143-191.

[97] Selinker, L. (1983): Interlanguage, in Faerch & Kasper's Strategies in

Interlanguage Communication. New York: Longman. Original IRAL (1972)
3:. 209-31.

[98] Selinker, L. & Douglas, D. (1985): Wrestling with "context" in

interlangauge theory. Applied Linguistics, 6/2: 190-204.

[99] Sharwood Smith, M. (1991) Speaking to Many Minds: on the

Relevance of Different Types of Language Information for the L2
Learner. Second Language Research, 7/2.

[100] Sharwood Smith, M. (1993): Input Enhancement in Instructed

SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15/2.

[101] Sinclair, J. & Brazil, D. (1982): Teacher Talk. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

[102] Sinclair, J. M. & Coulthard, R. M. (1975): Towards an Analysis of

Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

[103] Skehan, P. (1996): A Framework for the Implementation of Task-

based Instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17/1.

[104] Skehan, P. (1998): A Cognitive Approach to language

Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[105] Spolsky, B. (1989): Conditions for Second Language Learning.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

81
[106] Stern, H. H. (1983): Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[107] Strong, M. (1983): Social styles and second language acquisition of

Spanish-speaking kindergarteners. TESOL Quarterly, 17/2: 241-258.

[108] Swain, M. (1985): Communicative competence: some roles of

comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development, in
Gass and Madden (Eds.) 1985.

[109] Swain, M. (1995): Three functions of output in second language

learning, in G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (Eds.). Principle and Practice in
Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[110] Tarone, E. (1979): Interlanguage as Chameleon. Language

Learning 29/1: 181-191.

[111] Tarone, E. (1980): Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and

repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30: 417-431.

[112] Tarone, E. (1982): Systematicity and Attention in

Interlanguage. Language Learning, 32: 62-82.

[113] Thornbury, S. (1997): About Language. Cambridge. Cambridge

University Press.

[114] Thornbury, S. (1997): Reformulation and Reconstruction: Tasks that

Promote Noticing. ELT Journal, 51/4: 326-335.

[115] Thornbury, S. and Slade, D. (2006): Conversation: From Description

to Pedagogy Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

[116] Tomasello, M. & Herron, C. (1989): Feedback for language transfer

errors: The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 11.

[117] Tucker, R. (1998) A Global Perspective on Multilingualism and

Multilingual Education, in J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (1998) Beyond
Bilingualism. Clevedon. Multilingual Matters. Chapter 1.

[118] Van Els, T. T. et al. (1984): Applied Linguistics and the Learning and
Teaching of Foreign Languages. London: Edward Arnold.

82
[119] Van Patten, B. (1990): Attending to Form and Content in the Input:
An Experiment in Consciousness, Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 12: 287-302.

[120] Van Patten, B. (1993): Explicit Instruction and Input

Processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15.

[121] Vigil, N. & J. Oller. (1976): Rule Fossilization: A tentative

model. Language Learning, 26: 281-296.

[122] Vinja PaviciC Takac, (2008) Vocabulary Learning Strategies and

Foreign Language Acquisition. Multilingual Matters.

[123] White, L. (1987): Against Comprehensible Input: the Input Hypothesis

and the Development of Second Language Competence. Applied
Linguistics, 8/1: 95-110.

[124] Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (1983) (Eds.). Sociolinguistics and Second

Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

[125] Young, R. (1988): Variation and the interlanguage

hypothesis. Studies and Second Language Acquisition, 10/3: 281-302.

[126] Young, R & Doughty, C. (1987): Negotiation in context: a review of

research, in J. Lantolf & A. Labarca (Eds.). Research in Second Language
Learning: Focus on the Classroom. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

[127] ZhaoHong Han (2009) Interlanguage and Fossilization: Towards an

Analytic Model, in Contemporary Applied Linguistics: Language Teaching
and Learning, ed. by Li Wei andVivian Cook. Continuum, (2009).

83
List of appendices

Appendix 2.1:

- Extracts from two coursebooks: Mohamed, S. & R. Acklam

(1992): Beginner's Choice. London: Longman; Hartley, B. & P. Viney
(1978): Streamline English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Appendix 3.1:

- The formal features of foreigner talk based on Hatch (1979; 1983) and
Long (1981; 1983).

84
Appendix 2.1

Extract 1

Source: Beginner's Choice (1992) by S. Mohamed & R. Acklam. London: Longman.

85
Extract 2

Source: Streamline English (1978) by Hartley, B. & P. Viney. Oxford: Oxford.

86
Appendix 3.1

The formal features of foreigner talk, which have been based on Hatch
(1979; 1983) and Long (1981; 1983), can be summarised as follows.

Suprasegmental features:

• exaggerated intonation

• use of gesture

• variation in tone

• use of a loud voice

• onomatopoeia

• pauses

• slowness

Phonological features:

• clearer articulation

• phonological simplification

Semantic features:

• specific lexicon

• unique lexicon

• definitions

Syntactic features:

• less co-ordination and subordination

• more imperatives

87
 • use of the construction no + neg. verb

• omission of article

• omission of copula

• omission of possessive

• omitted or incorrect word endings

• omission of pronouns or pronominal uses

• more tag questions

• more use of one-word phrases

• more/less number of questions

• less complementation

• fewer verbs and more content words

• fewer compound verbs

Communicative resources used:

• avoid choosing the topic of the conversation: it is preferable for the

non-native to choose the topic;

• select specific topics: topics that refer to things that are immediately
present or are clearly known by the non-native speakers are
preferred;

• mark the new topics: it is preferable to clearly mark the beginning of

each new topic;

• check non-native speaker comprehension: it is preferable to regularly

check that the non-native speaker has understood the message;

• accept unintentional changes of topic: it is preferable to accept the

non-native speaker's change of topic even if it represents an
inappropriate answer to a question;

88
• ask for clarifications;

• confirm one's own understanding;

• tolerate ambiguity;

• repeat the interlocutor's message;

• reformulate the message in other words;

• correct content and phonology more than syntax;

• use more discourse fill-ins.

89