reading sla

B5

‘Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning’ by Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin (1995)

• Qualitative approach to SLA (question whether the qualitative approach can reach any definite conclusions?)

• The study focuses on the output (first article focused on the output! Before – only input)

• “Noticing a problem ‘pushes’ the learner to modify his/her output. In doing so, the learner may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic processing mode than might occur in comprehension”

• Schmidt and Frota (1986: 311) offer a ‘notice the gap principle’ which states, ‘a second language learner will begin to acquire the target like form if and only if it is present in comprehended input and ‘noticed’ in the normal sense of the word, that is consciously’. Our hypothesis is that output is one of the triggers for noticing. = in producing the target language, learners may encounter a problem leading them to recognize what they do not know or know only partially.

• The ‘output hypothesis’ is that even without implicit or explicit feedback provided from an interlocutor about the learners’ output, learners may notice a gap in their own knowledge when they encounter a problem in trying to produce the L2

• Gary and Gary: Comprehension – at least all but the most advanced levels – allows many linguistic signals to be ignored: redundant grammatical and semantic functions such as concord, definite/ indefinite distinctions, singular/plural distinctions, etc., can very often be ignored without seriously distorting the message being comprehended.

• one function of output in second language learning might be to force the learner to move from the semantic processing prevalent in comprehension to the syntactic processing needed for production.

Findings:

• young adolescent language learners do indeed become aware of gaps in their linguistic knowledge as they produce their L2

• they do engage in their thought process

• sometimes, their outcome was faulty, suggesting that relevant feedback could play a crucial role in advancing their second language learning

• it is suggested that the communicative need engendered by the task did force the learners into thinking about the form of their linguistic output - In other words, it moved learners from semantic to grammatical processing

‘The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition’ by Susan M. Gass, Alison Mackey and Teresa Pica (1998)

• The main argument put forward in this article is that input is most effective in learning when it is part of interaction, and not when the learner is simply exposed to spoken or written text

• They found that both the negotiated and modified input positively affected comprehension

• They found that prior negotiation, but not prior modified input, significantly affected subsequent production, leading them to suggest that interaction, with the opportunity for modifications, may impact positively on later language use.

• Although interaction may provide a structure that allows input to become salient and hence noticed, interaction should not be seen as a cause of acquisition; it can only set the scene for potential learning

• there are many factors involved in L2 learning: the role of interaction is claimed only to be facilitative. The sources of learning are complex and can be seen as stemming from learner-internal factors, some of which have received extensive treatment in the SLA literature

• The article dealt with the effect of output in spoken interaction. It is clear that acquisition may take place during interaction but keeping a DST perspective and the learning theories presented in Unit A4 in mind, we very much agree with Gass et al.’s conclusion that, no matter how useful, interaction should not be seen as a cause of acquisition, but as a scene in which potential learning can take place.