input interaction and language learning

8/10/2019 Input Interaction and Language Learning

1/91

Ming Chuan University

College of Applied Languages

Department of Applied English

Input, Interaction, and Language Learning

A Thesis in

Applied English

By

Pei-Yi Ou Yang

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Arts

June 2007


2/91

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to many people who have helped me directly and indirectly in the

process of my thesis writing. My primary debt of gratitude, however, is to my dear

advisor, Dr. Chaochang Wang, who constantly offers encouragement and advice in the

process of conducting the study and writing up the thesis. I would never have

completed the thesis without my advisors assistance. A debt of special thanks

extends to my committee members, Dr. Jia-Yeuan Lee and Dr. Shi-Ping Wang, who

reviewed and provided invaluable suggestions. Also, I would like to express my

appreciation to Prof. James Myers for his useful feedback on my thesis.

I am also indebted to the teachers and students who participated in this study.

Finally, of long-standing importance for my study has been the generous love and

support from my father who believes me so much when I embark on the graduate

study. I cannot finish the graduate study without his generous love and support.

I


3/91

Krashen (1985)

Long

(1980, 1983, 1996)

Long

60 66 126

Long(1980)

II


4/91

Abstract

Interaction plays a significant role in second language (L2) acquisition mainly

because learners can obtain comprehensible input, a prerequisite for L2 learning.

According to Krashen (1985) Input Hypothesis, learners must access to

comprehensible input, and the input (i) should go slightly beyond their current

competence (i+1) in order to make acquisition take place. Long (1980, 1983, 1996)

particularly emphasizes the importance of interactional modifications, arguing that

negotiated interaction not only promotes comprehension but also assists acquisition.

Having recognized the significance of interaction in L2 learning, the researcher

in this study employed a quantitative approach investigating the effects of baseline (B)

input and interactionally modified (IM) input on listening comprehension of

directions and acquisition of words embedded in the directions. Two intact classes:

one served as an experimental group (n=60) and the other (n=66) as a control group

were involved in the study. The subjects were 126 freshmen from the Department of

Digital Media Design at Ming Chuan University. The results of this study revealed

that the students in the IM group significantly outscored (p


5/91

IV

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------- I

CHINESE ABSTRACT ------------------------------------------------------------------ II

ENGLISH ABSTRACT ------------------------------------------------------------------- III

TABLE OF CONTENTS---------------------------------------------------------------- IV

LIST OF TABLES------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI

LIST OF FIGURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- VII

Chapter One Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------- 1

Chapter Two Literature Review

The Role of Input ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

Comprehensible Input and SLA ------------------------------------------------------ 13

The Insufficiency of Comprehensible Input ---------------------------------------- 16

The Role of Interaction in L2 Learning---------------------------------------------- 21

A. Comprehensible Output --------------------------------------------------------- 21

B.Negotiation of Meaning --------------------------------------------------------- 22

C.

Negative Feedback --------------------------------------------------------------- 27

Review of Related Studies ------------------------------------------------------------ 30

Research Questions -------------------------------------------------------------------- 36

Definition of Terms -------------------------------------------------------------------- 37

Chapter Three Methods

Participants ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38

Design ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39


6/91

V

Instruments ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41

Treatment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46

Procedure ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47

Data Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49

Chapter Four Results

Pretest Scores ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51

Comprehension of the Directions -------------------------------------------------- 53

Acquisition of Vocabulary ---------------------------------------------------------- 54

Correlation between Initial English-Learning Age and Posttest Scores ------ 56

Chapter Five Discussion

Pedagogical Implications ----------------------------------------------------------- 60

Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research --------------- 61

Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 62

REFERENCES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65

APPENDIX

Appendix A Pretest ------------------------------------------------------------------- 71

Appendix B Immediate Posttest ---------------------------------------------------- 72

Appendix C Delayed Posttest 1 ----------------------------------------------------- 73

Appendix D Delayed Posttest 2 ----------------------------------------------------- 74

Appendix E A Matrix Picture of A Kitchen ---------------------------------------- 75

Appendix F Pictures of Target Words ----------------------------------------------- 76

Appendix G Directions ---------------------------------------------------------------- 77

Appendix H Teaching Scripts --------------------------------------------------------- 78

Appendix I Transcripts ---------------------------------------------------------------- 79


7/91

VI

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Demographic Table of Participants ------------------------------------------------ 39

2. Reliability of the Tests --------------------------------------------------------------- 45

3. Experimental Procedure -------------------------------------------------------------- 49

4. Descriptive & Inferential of Pretests Scores on Vocabulary, Listening

Comprehension, and Reading Comprehension in Two Groups ----------------- 53

5. Descriptive & Inferential of Comprehension Scores of the Directions in Two

Groups ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54

6. Descriptive & Inferential Posttests Scores in Two Groups ----------------------- 56


8/91

VII

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Model for Non-understanding ------------------------------------------------------ 23


9/91

Chapter One

Introduction

No one can deny the importance of input in language learning because one

cannot acquire a language without it. Input is defined as the language that is

addressed to the L2 learner either by a native speaker or by another L2 learner and his

interlocutors (Ellis, 1985, p.127). Although theories of second language (L2)

learning all recognize the importance of input, their interpretations of input vary.

Input for behaviorists involves stimuli and feedback (Ellis, 1994). Stimuli refer to

models of a language and feedback refers to either positive reinforcement or

correction. Learners imitate utterances surrounding them, and language acquisition

occurs when learners utterances are reinforced. Learning, according to this notion,

is passive. Nativists, however, consider input a trigger to our predisposed language

capacity, arguing that everyone is equipped with a language acquisition device (LAD),

which helps us to acquire a language (Brown, 2000). The third school of thought,

constructivism puts the emphasis of language acquisition on social interaction, but it

should be noted that we can categorize constructivists into two types, including those

who posit that language acquisition is the result of both our innate language ability as

well as interaction, and those who believe social interaction is the only cause of

language acquisition (Brown, 2000).

1


10/91

Besides behaviorism, nativism, and interactionism, other scholars point of

views toward input will be also presented in the following. Schwarts (1993) claims

that access to input is an initial step to L2 learning, and Sharwood Smith (1993)

argues that it is important to recognize that language proficiency either develops as a

response to input or fails to grow despite that input (p.167). The significant role of

input in L2 acquisition can be also seen in the Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1983).

Krashen (1983) argues that learners have to have access to comprehensible input, and

the input should be slightly beyond their current competence. Long (1991) also

acknowledges the necessity of comprehensible input in L2 acquisition.

Not only do we learn the different role that input plays in each school of

thought but we also realize the importance of comprehensible input in L2 acquisition.

The issue of comprehensible input raises the question of how learners comprehend

input, particularly input which is not within their current competence. Contextual

information, according to Krashen (1983), aids learners to reach comprehension and

Long (1996) contends that interactional modifications plays a vital role in facilitating

learners comprehensibility. That is, learners obtain comprehensible input through

interaction, namely negotiation for meaning with their interlocutors. As Long (1996)

argued in the Interaction Hypothesis,

Negotiation for meaning is the process in which, in an effort to communicate,

2


11/91

learners and competent speakers provide and interpret signals of their own and

their interlocutors perceived comprehension, thus provoking adjustments to

linguistic form, conversational structure, message content, or all three, until an

acceptable level of understanding is achieved (p.418).

Negotiation for meaning fosters language acquisition for several reasons. First,

non-understanding input is repeated and rearranged until it becomes comprehensible

to learners. Learners, secondly, have opportunities to practice speaking in the

process of negotiated interaction. In addition, learners ill utterances can be

indirectly or directly corrected by more competent interlocutors. In addition to the

claim which Long offered in the Interaction Hypothesis (1983, 1996), studies (Ellis,

1994, 1995; Gass & Varonis, 1994; Mackey, 1999) have also shown the positive effect

of negotiation for meaning on L2 acquisition.

The Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1983, 1996), however, is still attacked by

some scholars. Sharwood Smith(1986) as well as Faerch and Kasper (1986) doubted

that it is contextual aids or learners background knowledge rather than negotiated

interaction itself which leads learners to understand the meanings of input. The

validity of interaction on language acquisition was also pointed out by Sato (1986, as

cited in Ellis, 2003). In her study, two Vietnamese children did not succeed in

acquiring English morphological markers of past tense in spite of frequent interaction

3


12/91

with native speakers of English for 10 months. Pinker (1989) suspected whether

learners are able to perceive correction provided by their conversational partners.

The failure of the effect of negotiation for meaning on the acquisition of Japanese

locatives was also found by Loschky (1994). Finally, the failure of the immersion

students of French to reach native-like proficiency entails the question of the

significant effect of negotiation for meaning on L2 learning (Swain, 1985).

Despite whether negotiation for meaning has a positive effect on L2 acquisition,

the implication of research findings regarding the effect of negotiation for meaning on

L2 acquisition is that language teachers need to offer students a considerable number

of opportunities to negotiate meaning with either their teacher and/or peers whenever

confusion of input arises so as to maximize the possibility of L2 acquisition. The

optimal learning condition, however, does not frequently happen in L2 classrooms;

rather, the SL classroom offers very little opportunity to the learner to communicate

in the target language or to hear it used for communicative purposes by others (Long,

1983, p.348). Pica (1987), additionally, noted that L2 classroom instruction is

mostly teacher-centered. It is usually teachers, not learners who act as an active role

to pose questions or give comments, and this phenomenon is also observed in

Taiwanese L2 classrooms. Research (Lu, 2005; Xu, 2000; Yek, 2005) has shown

that English instruction in Taiwan is mainly conducted in a traditional approach, such

4


13/91

as explanations of grammar rules. Taiwanese English teachers do not often provide

students with opportunities to engage in activities which require negotiating strategies;

rather, they usually use drills or mechanical practice as a means to practice what has

been previously taught (Lu, 2005).

Although the explanations of grammar rules and mechanical practice like drills

have their effect on L2 learning, L2 learning might become tedious if they are applied

to vocabulary instruction since memorization of thousands of lists of words may not

be an easy task. When learners talk about L2 acquisition, vocabulary is probably the

first component that L2 learners will think about because it is a basic element that

enables learners to understand input and to convey their message. Comprehensible

input is a critical factor to L2 acquisition, and the ability to comprehend input partly

relies on the understanding of the meanings of words (Krashen & Terrell, 1983).

Whether one can freely express his or her ideas also depends on how much

vocabulary s/he has. As Wilkins (1972) stated, without grammar very little can be

conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed (p. 111). In addition,

having sufficient vocabulary aids learners to communicate effectively (Vermeer,

1992). That is, the more vocabulary one knows, the more likely one can be an

effective communicator s/he is. The inappropriate use of vocabulary may result in

misunderstandings or non-understandings. The two following examples illustrate

5


14/91

how inappropriate use of vocabulary hinders expression. :

(1) Many times I wrote over without best answer was obtained. (Grammatical

errors)

(2) With that discriminate area, I have disjointed several forms. (Lexical errors)

(from Gass & Selinker, 2001, p.265)

Research (Yek, 2005) has shown that vocabulary instruction in Taiwan is

mainly a traditional approach, such as rote learning. English learners in Taiwan have

to memorize lists of words in the process of English learning, which might be an

uneasy and ineffective way of acquiring vocabulary. Many Taiwanese English

teachers focus the teaching of vocabulary on rote learning (Huang, 1999), and

numerous English teachers and learners believe memorization of lists of words is a

major way to master a language (Chang, 2004). The significance of vocabulary in

L2 learning motivates Taiwanese researchers to adopt different methods such as

mnemonics, think-aloud, vocabulary gloss, and association to find out an effective

way to teach and learn vocabulary, but few of them employed oral input to investigate

the effect of negotiation for meaning on the acquisition of vocabulary. Owing to the

significance of interaction and vocabulary in L2 acquisition as well as the insufficient

studies on the acquisition of vocabulary via negotiation for meaning, the present study

regarding the effect of interaction on the acquisition of vocabulary was conducted. It

6


15/91

aimed to examine whether or not students who had opportunities to engage in

negotiation of meaning significantly acquired more vocabulary than those who did not

have opportunities to engage in negotiation of meaning.

The examination of the effect of negotiation of meaning on listening

comprehension and on the acquisition of vocabulary confirms the results of previous

findings and offers pedagogical implications for English teachers and learners in

Taiwan. First, the study is one of the few studies in Taiwan to investigate the effect

of oral input on the acquisition of vocabulary. Furthermore, the present study

supports the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1983, 1996): interactional modifications

facilitate learners to obtain comprehensible input and to enhance acquisition. Finally,

the findings of the present study may provide L2 teachers with references of ways to

conduct instructions.

7


16/91

Chapter Two

Literature Review

This chapter provides a theoretical framework that relates to input and

interaction and discusses findings of relevant studies. First of all, the role of input in

different schools of thoughts is reviewed. After that, the review of comprehensible

input as well as its insufficiency in L2 learning is introduced. Also included is the

discussion of the issue regarding the role of interaction in L2 acquisition. Then,

studies on the effect of interaction are examined.

The Role of Input

Input is an indispensable component in second language (L2) acquisition. It

can be either written or oral and obtained in natural settings or in the classroom.

Three different views (behaviorism, nativism, and constructivism) about the role of

input in L2 learning will be discussed in the following.

A linguistic environment plays a significant role in the school of behaviorism

because it sees language learning as a type of habit formation and a stimulus-response

connection. Input serves as stimuli to language learning, and, hence, acquisition

occurs when learners responses are reinforced (Ellis, 1985, 1997). Behaviorists, in

addition, argue that drills and mechanical practice are necessary for language

8


17/91

acquisition since they aid learners to form habits and eventually lead to automaticity,

thereby resulting in acquisition (Brown, 2000). Moreover, behaviorists believe

learning refers to the process of acquiring isolated small units and learners develop

their language proficiency by accumulating these small pieces (Brown, 2000). In

other words, L2 learners acquire words or phrases first so as to produce sentences.

In short, language learning involves, according to behaviorism, intensive rote verbal

practice, and learners acquire a language when their responses to stimuli are

conditioned and habits are formed.

Rather than viewing language learning as habit formation, nativists contend

language learning is a result of our predisposed capacity, and input is mainly used as a

trigger to arouse our innate language ability. Each of us is equipped with a language

acquisition device (LAD) inside our body, and this device is turned on once we have

access to input (Brown, 2000). The activated LAD helps us to creatively acquire a

language (Brown, 2000; Ellis, 1985). A cognitive psychologist, David Ausubel,

believes that one should learn meaningfully. New knowledge is best absorbed and

stored in long-term memory when it is related to existing knowledge (Brown, 2000).

The third school of thought, constructivism, emphasizes the importance of

social contexts because human beings develop their linguistic competence through

interaction with others (Brown, 2000). Two famous constructivists, Piaget and

9


18/91

Vygotsky, stress the importance of social contexts but view them differently. Piaget

(1972, as cited in Brown, 2000) believes human beings are equipped with language

capacity, and social interaction is important to trigger our innateness. Vygotsky

(1978, as cited in Brown, 2000), however, rejects the notion of predispositions and

claims that acquisition only happens through social interaction. As he states in

proposing the zone of proximal development (ZPD): the range of tasks that children

cannot yet perform independently but can perform with the help and guidance of

others (Ormrod, 2003, p.38). Children, hence, are able to acquire new knowledge

which is slightly beyond their current competence as a result of the interaction with

more competent interlocutors (Ellis, 1997). Having recognized the significance of

interaction, Roger, one of the constructivists, suggests that teachers should create a

relaxed learning environment so that learners can free themselves to interact with

others and, thus, maximize the effect of learning (Brown, 2000).

Besides the three schools of thoughts (behaviorism, nativism, and

constructivism), Gass (1997) model of SLA, which contains 5 stages (apperceived

input, comprehended input, intake, integration, and output) also reveals how

important input is in L2 learning. Apperceived input is defined as the bit of

language that is noticed in some way by the learner because of some particular

recognizable features (Gass, 1997, p.4). The idea of apperception is close to that of

10


19/91

schemata: learners associate new information with their prior experiences in order to

comprehend messages. Gass (1997) differentiated between comprehensible input

and comprehended input in which the former is controlled by speakers whereas the

latter is controlled by learners. It is very important to make the difference between

comprehensible input and comprehended input because it is learners who know how

much input they really understand. Moreover, comprehension ranges from

semantic to syntactic comprehension; hence, learners may understand the meaning of

input before being able to syntactically analyze it (Gass, 1997).

Although it is highly possible for a person to understand a general meaning of

input without knowing its forms, to help language acquisition take place, only

understanding the meaning of input is not enough; rather, one needs to integrate input

into intake. Intake is the process of assimilating linguistic material (Gass, 1997,

p.5), and it is where psycholinguistic processing happens. In terms of integration,

two elements are involved: the development of L2 grammar, and storage. Gass and

Selinker (1994) suggest four possibilities for the outcome of input:

(1) The first possibility is hypothesis confirmation or rejection (intake

integration).

(2) The second possibility is apparent nonuse of the input (intake

integration).

11


20/91

(3) The third possibility is storage (intake delay or incubation period

[integration]).

(4) The fourth possibility is nonuse (comprehended input [intake]

exist) (p.6)

The first hypothesis indicates a learners hypothesis can be either confirmed or

rejected when s/he has access to input. The second happens when the input involves

knowledge that a learner already knows. The third one reveals input is stored when

a learner has a better understanding about it and when s/he has no opportunities to

receive more input to make hypothesis confirmation or rejection

In this section, the significance and a variety of views toward the role of input

in L2 acquisition has been discussed not only in the three schools of thought but also

in Gass model of SLA. Behaviorism views input as stimuli and language

acquisition occurs when responses to stimuli are conditioned. Nativism asserts that

input is used to trigger our innate language learning ability. It is the LAD inside our

body which enables us to acquire a language. The third school of thought,

constructivism, believes acquisition is the result of input as well as interaction with

others. In Gass model of SLA, we learned how input is converted to output.

Although input is necessary to L2 acquisition, how to make input comprehensible is

far more important since language acquisition rarely occurs when input is

12


21/91

incomprehensible to learners.

Comprehensible Input and SLA

Krashen, a well-known scholar in the sphere of SLA, strongly believes in the

usefulness of comprehensible input, considering it an indispensable element in L2

acquisition because acquisition can occur as long as learners have access to

comprehensible input. Krashen (1985) defined L2 learners current stage as i, and

their next stage as i+1. Learners, according to this concept, should receive input

which goes a little beyond their current competence to make acquisition occur.

Therefore, learners language proficiency can be enhanced as long as there is enough

comprehensible input. Speaking, according to this notion, is not a cause but an

outcome for acquisition. Learners, therefore, do not develop their speaking skills

through direct instruction; rather, learners increasing ability to comprehend input help

develop speaking skills (Krashen, 1985). Comprehensible input, furthermore, also

helps learners to advance their grammatical competence which indicates that

receiving comprehensible input is far more vital for learners than deliberately

teaching grammar to them (Krashen, 1985).

Learners benefit from input which is slightly beyond their current ability;

however, it may still be difficult for them to comprehend that input, the input that is

13


22/91

not within their capacity, without adopting strategies. Krashen (1987) claims that

contextual clues and other paralinguistic information can assist comprehension.

Ellis (2003), additionally, points out the usefulness of schemata as well as contextual

information in reaching comprehension, suggesting they are particularly beneficial for

learners whose language proficiency is insufficient to deal with utterances in a target

language (TL). Ellis (2003) goes on to state that listeners use their schematic

knowledge to comprehend input and make interpretation, prediction, and hypothesis

testing. Listeners catch important information and associate it with their schemata

when interpreting input. Next, listeners foretell the content or structures of a text

when being able to comprehend the meaning of input. For example, in an academic

conference, listeners predict that the content must be related to teaching English as a

second/foreign language when the speaker in the conference is an expert in that

sphere. Also they predict the structure of the speech; that is, how the speech is going

to be presented. Finally, listeners predictions about the information of a text are

either confirmed or disconfirmed. If predictions are rejected, they develop new

schematic knowledge. This process refers to the use of top-down processing to

comprehend input. In contrast, learners employ bottom-up processing, that is,

decoding utterances word for word in order to understand the meaning of input when

they lack background knowledge about a text (Ellis, 2003).

14


23/91

Besides the use of contextual information, schematic knowledge and

paralinguistic information, comprehension can also be reached through the use of

simplified code by NSs or L2 teachers. The use of simplified speech is called

foreigner talk (FT) when occurring at natural settings and is named teacher talk when

taking place in an L2 classroom (Ellis, 1985). Teachers or NSs adjust their speech in

different ways. For example, they may modify the rate of speech, length of

utterances, the use of vocabulary, or syntactic complexity. The features of teacher

talk are as follows, (Chaudron, 1988)

1. Rate of speech appears to be slower.

2. Pauses, which may be evidence of the speaker planning more, are possibly

more frequent and longer.

3. Pronunciation tends to be exaggerated and simplified.

4. Vocabulary use is more basic.

5. Degree of subordination is lower.

6.

More declaratives and statements are used than questions.

7.

Teachers may self-repeat more frequently. (p.85)

Through the modifications of speech, students are more likely to reach successful

comprehension. Teachers or NSs, however, do not always adjust their speech in the

same way; rather, they simplify the speech according to learners language proficiency

15


24/91

(Haknsson, as cited in Ellis, 1994). The issue of FT or teacher talk raises the

question of the effect of simplification. That is, do teachers or NSs effectively

modify their speech so as to aid learners to reach successful comprehension? It was

pointed out that the use of less frequent words or over-elaboration may not promote

students comprehension but to hinder it (Ellis, 1994; Chaudron, 1983). This notion

demonstrates that the quality of adjustments is more important than the quantity of

them. When employing simplified code effectively, teachers provide students with

useful listening materials and thereby contribute to their L2 acquisition.

The Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985) explains the importance of

comprehensible input in L2 acquisition. In addition, we learn how useful strategies,

such as schematic knowledge, contextual clues, paralinguistic information and the

provision of FT or teacher talk help comprehension. In spite of the significance and

usefulness of comprehensible input, merely receiving comprehensible input does not

guarantee the acquisition since comprehensible input is a necessary but not the only

condition in language acquisition (Ellis, 1994; Gas,1997; Gass& Selinker, 2001; Long,

1996; Schmidt, 1983; Swain, 1985).

The Insufficiency of Comprehensible Input

Krashen (1985), in his Input Hypothesis, highlights the significant role

16


25/91

comprehensible input plays in L2 acquisition, arguing the success or failure of

acquisition relies on whether or not input is comprehensible to learners. The Input

Hypothesis, however, has brought a considerable amount of critiques. First, Rost

(1990) claims that being able to understand the meaning of input is not equal to the

acquisition of it because one may still have no ideas of the forms of sentences in a TL

even though s/he successfully comprehends messages. Secondly, Faerch and Kasper

(1986) believe learners pay very little attention to linguistic items when they use

top-down processing to reach comprehension. White (1987) holds a similar view,

contending that being able to comprehend input does not necessarily lead to

acquisition; rather, acquisition occurs when learners fail to understand the meaning of

messages because the failure of comprehending input draws their attention to

unfamiliar linguistic items and hence results in acquisition.

The evidence of the insufficient comprehensible input in L2 learning can be

seen from the study of Swain (1991) and of Schmidt (1983). Swain (1991) found

that although immersion students of French achieved native-like proficiency in terms

of listening and reading comprehension, they failed to reach native-like proficiency in

production, which was shown in their grammatical errors, such as verb tenses,

prepositional usage, and gender-marking. Swain (1991), hence, concluded that

although the immersion students of French were exposed to L2 and received

17


26/91

comprehensible input, their productive skills remain far from native-like (p.98).

Another evidence of the insufficiency of comprehensible input in L2 acquisition

comes from a case study conducted by Schmidt (1983). Schmidt (1983) did a 5-year

longitudinal case study of Wes, an adult Japanese naturalistic learner of English in

Honolulu, who could use English to reach basic purposes, such as ordering food.

Wes English knowledge in morphology, however, did not advance although he lived

in an English-speaking place.

Besides the empirical evidence of the insufficiency of comprehensible input in

L2 acquisition, it has been argued that comprehensible input does not always result in

language acquisition because learners may understand meanings of input without

knowing forms (Long, 1996). According to Faerch and Kasper (1986), some input is

used for comprehension when it is used in immediate communication, and in this case,

it is less likely to result in acquisition because there is too little time for learners to

pay attention to input (Gass & Selinker, 2001). It is, furthermore, claimed that

acquisition does not occur if learners always use top-down models to process

information since the use of contextual clues or schematic knowledge do not induce

learners to notice their interlanguage and to attend to linguistic items; in other words,

only when learners become aware of gaps between their interlanguage and a target

language (TL) and when they consciously attend to input does language acquisition

18


27/91

take place (Shardwood Simth, 1986; Faerch & Kasper, 1986).

In addition, input has to be assimilated into intake for acquisition to occur.

Intake is defined as that part of input that the learner notices (Schmidt, 1990, p.139).

According to Schmidt (1990), noticing is an indispensable condition in language

acquisition, as he argues, if noticed, it becomes intake (p.139). Intake, hence,

eventually takes place if learners consciously notice input. Schmidts view of

noticing derives from his own Portuguese-learning experience. Schmidt studied

Portuguese in Brazil for 5 weeks, spending time interacting with NSs of Portuguese.

Schmidt compared the recordings of his own speech to the diary and notes he wrote in

order to find a link between noticing and language output. However, the relation

between input and output was insufficient to explain Schmidts production. What

was significant was the relationship between what Schmidt found in his diary and the

emergence of these forms in his speech, as Schmidt (1990) noted,

When we learned questions words, we were told that there are alternate short

and long forms like a queand o que e que, quemor quem e que. I have never

heard the long forms, but today, just before we left Cabo Frio, M said

something to me that I didnt catch right away. It sounded like French

queest-ce que cest[sic], only much abbreviated, approximately [kekse], which

must be (o) que (e) que (vo)ce(p.140)

19


28/91

Schmidt went on to say that he heard the input and processed it for meaning from the

beginning, but did not notice the form for five months (1990, p.141). Therefore,

Schmidt concluded that consciously noticing input results in the ability to produce it.

From the evidence of the studies of Swain (1991), Schmidt (1983) as well as

the argument that the use of top-down models in reaching comprehension seldom

leads to language acquisition, we learn that not all comprehensible input ends up in

language acquisition because only understanding general meanings of input is

insufficient for language acquisition to take place (Long, 1996, Faerch and Kasper,

1986; Gass 1994; Gass & Selinker, 2001). The conversion of input into intake is

necessary in L2 learning if one is to make language acquisition occur, and Schmidt

(1983) argues that learners need to notice input before assimilating it into intake.

Learners cannot simply have the ability to understand a general meaning of input but

also have the capacity to syntactically analyze input and produce comprehensible

output because the ability to syntactically analyze input and produce comprehensible

output aids learners not only to convert input into intake but to make them pay

attention to their gaps between the correct as well as the incorrect use of a TL,

eventually resulting in the acquisition of an L2.

20


29/91


30/91

(3) It allows learners to test out hypotheses about the target-language grammar;

(4) It helps to automatize existing L2 knowledge;

(5) It provides opportunities for learners to develop discourse skills, for

example by producing long turns;

(6) It is important for helping learners to develop a personal voice by steering

conversations on to topics they are interested in contributing to. (p.111)

According to Swain (1985), the capacity to produce comprehensible output is also

vital for L2 acquisition because output may force learners to move from semantic

processing to syntactic processing (p.249), and if learners want to achieve native-like

proficiency, they cannot simply get a message across, but to convey their message

precisely, coherently, and appropriately (p.249). Moreover, producing output is

important for L2 acquisition because learners notice gaps between their language and

a TL, and it is suggested that noticing gaps has its greatest effect in language

acquisition when learners try to seek ways to advance their interlanguage (Swain,

1985).

B. Negotiation of Meaning

Another reason that interaction aids L2 acquisition is that it allows learners to

engage in negotiation of meaning. Long (1996) defined negotiation as:

The process in which, in an effort to communicate, learners and competent

22


31/91


32/91

to response (RR).

NS: so you came here by yourself or did you come with friends?

NNS: no no Iwhat? What you say?

NS: did you come to the states with friends or did you come alone?

NNS: no, alonefrom Toronto

(From Pica, 1987a, p.5)

In the above instance, the NS adjusted his/her speech in order to have the NNS

comprehend input.

Furthermore, negotiation of meaning is important for language acquisition

because it involves denser than usual frequencies of semantically contingent speech

of various kinds (Long, 1996, p.452) and the contingency is necessary for language

acquisition because of the following reasons:

1. The frequencies of target forms in the reformulations tends to be higher, as

negotiation involves recycling related items while a problem is resolved,

which should increase their saliency and the likelihood of their being

noticed by the learner.

2. Many of the input modifications, such as stress of key words, partial

repetition, lexical switches and decomposition, involved in some

reformulations can also serve to make target forms salient independent of

increased frequency in the input.

3. The reformulations also often involve rearrangements of adjacent utterances

that both reveal how their constituents should segmented, and weave rich

24


33/91

semantic nets that illustrate the communicative value of TL forms. (p.452)

In short, it is the interactional adjustments that lead to comprehension, thereby making

language acquisition occur.

Effects of interaction are still questioned despite the benefits it brings to

language acquisition. First of all, frames such as confirmation checks or clarification

requests may be used for a completely different function rather than being used for

negotiation of meaning in communication. For example,

S1: And your what is your mmm fathers job?

S2: My father now is retire.

S1: retire?

S2: yes

S1: Oh, yes (from Ellis, 2003, p.70)

In the above instance, it is possible that rather than using the word, retire, to make

confirmation (Gass & Varonis, 1985), S1 may simply repeat retire so as to continue a

conversation; in this case, therefore, the conversation has nothing to do with

negotiation of meaning (Aston, 1986).

Secondly, whether or not comprehension is the result of negotiation of meaning

is doubtful (Ellis, 2005) because learners might comprehend input due to their

schematic knowledge or contextual assistance (Sharwood Smith, 1986; Faerch &

Kasper, 1986). Hawkins (1985) says learners sometimes pretend they are able to

comprehend input.

NSs, furthermore, may not always understand NNSs through negotiation of

25


34/91

meaning; therefore, whether or not NNSs are able to effectively adopt negotiation

strategies plays a crucial factor in getting a message across.

In addition, Krashen (1985) questioned the effect of interactionally modified

input on acquisition because he believes the effect of premodified input on acquisition

is the same as the interactionally modified input. As can be seen from the study of

Ellis (2001b), the interactionally modified input was not more effective than

premodified input on the acquisition of vocabulary.

Also, although learners can receive comprehensible input through negotiation

of meaning with conversational partners, it does not warrant language acquisition

because comprehending input may come from the assistance of learners background

knowledge or from the help of contextual information. Language acquisition,

however, requires close attention to linguistic forms (Gass & Varoniss, 1994; Polio

&Gass, 1988) since Schmidt (1990) argues that no learning can occur without

consciousness.

Sato (1986, as cited in Ellis, 2003), finally, doubts the effect of interaction on

language acquisition because in her 5-month study, two Vietnamese children did not

succeed in acquiring English morphological markers of past tense in spite of frequent

interaction with NSs of English for 10 months.

Interacting with interlocutors, learners obtain opportunities to receive

26


35/91

comprehensible input and feedback in the process of negotiation of meaning, thereby

facilitating L2 acquisition. In spite of the facilitative role in promoting

comprehension, however, the role of interaction in L2 acquisition remains disputable

since the ability to comprehend input is a necessary but not the only condition in L2

acquisition.

C. Negative Feedback

Negative feedback is one of the advantages that learners can obtain from

negotiation of meaning. Feedback is either explicit or implicit (Gass, 2003; Long,

1996). Explicit negative feedback refers to direct correction of learners errors, and

implicit negative feedback means to indirectly point out an interlocutors

ungrammatical utterances, which can be in the form of clarification requests,

confirmation checks, and recasts (Braidi, 2002). Two instances of explicit and

implicit negative feedback are presented below:

Negative feedback is helpful for L2 acquisition because it allows learners to

know their incorrect use of a target language as well as the correct use of a target

language. As contended by Gass (2001), negotiation of the sort that takes place in

conversation is a means to focus a learners attention on just those areas of language

that do not match those of the language being learned (p.291), and Gass goes on to

say by providing learners with information about incorrect forms, negotiation

27


36/91

enables learners to search for additional confirmatory or non-confirmatory evidence

(p.283). In connection with Gass, Long (1996) claims that communicative trouble

can lead learners to reorganize that a linguistic problem exists, switch their attentional

focus from message to form, identify the problem, and notice the needed item in the

input (p.425). If learners do not have enough access to input, they lose

opportunities to confirm or reject their hypotheses; their interlanguage, thus, might

not be advanced. In contrast, learners language proficiency can be promoted when

there is sufficient input to make confirmation or rejections of hypotheses (Gass,

1997).

Moreover, negative feedback is beneficial for L2 acquisition because it helps

learners notice the differences between their first language and a target language.

The following statement reveals the benefit of negative feedback in L2 acquisition:

Negative feedback obtained during negotiation work or elsewhere may be

facilitative of L2 development, at least for vocabulary, morphology, and

language-specific syntax, and essential for learning certain specifiable L1-L2

contrasts (Long, 1996, p.414).

According to Longs (1996) statement, we may argue it is when learners orally

produce output do they find their inaccurate use of phrases and structures in a TL;

hence prompting them to seek ways to advance their interlanguage, then foster

28


37/91

acquisition.

The role of negative evidence remains controversial though there are theories

supporting the contributions it makes for L2 acquisition. First, whether or not

negative evidence exists; secondly, how useful the negative evidence is; thirdly,

whether or not learners perceive negative evidence, and finally if it is always

necessary to offer negative evidence (Pinker, 1989). In terms of the existence of

negative evidence, Bohannon and Stanowicz (1988, as cited in Braidi, 2002) reported

that mothers responded differentially to childrens well-formed and ill-formed

utterances; more exact repetitions were responded to grammatical utterances than to

ungrammatical ones. Similar results were obtained by Demetras et al. (1986).

They noticed that clarification for requests usually followed ill-formed speech. With

respect to the usefulness of negative evidence, Bohannon et al. (1990) believes that

negative evidence is useful because learners realize what is acceptable in a TL and

what is not. Schidmt (1990) holds a similar view, positing that negative evidence is

required to advance learners IL. Additionally, the answer to the question, whether

learners notice negative evidence, is affirmative; children not only perceive negative

evidence but also use it (Farrar, 1990). There is, however, little evidence to prove

whether or not negative evidence is necessary (Long, 1996)

In short, when engaging in interaction, learners not only receive

29


38/91

comprehensible input but are also forced to produce output. The need to negotiate

meaning with interlocutors enables learners to obtain feedback either explicitly or

implicitly. Therefore, the opportunities to orally produce output, engage in

negotiation, and receive negative feedback foster language acquisition.

The concepts of the role of input, of comprehensible input, and of interaction in

L2 acquisition were introduced. Following the concepts was the review of the

previous studies regarding the effect of negotiation for meaning on L2 learning.

Review of Related Studies

In this section, a number of studies which demonstrated both the positive and

the negative effects of interaction on L2 acquisition are discussed. Krashen (1985)

argues that learners must receive comprehensible input in order to make acquisition

occur, and Long (1983) suggests that it is through interactional adjustments that

learners are able to obtain comprehensible input. Owing to the importance of

comprehensible input as well as the significance of interactional modifications in L2

acquisition, Pica et al. (1987) did a study investigating the effect of premodified and

interactionally modified input on learners listening comprehension. The

participants were sixteen adult nonnative speakers of English, being asked to listen to

a set of directions given by a native speaker; after each direction, the subjects had to

30


39/91

select and place an item on a board. The results of the study supported the

hypothesis: subjects in the interactionally modified group significantly outscored

(p


40/91

confirming the claim that negotiation of meaning facilitates comprehension (Long,

1983). However, the participants in the NT group did not significantly outperform

those in the PM and BL groups on the acquisition of vocabulary and locatives

although the subjects in the NT group reached successful comprehension, suggesting

the ability to comprehend input is not necessarily equal to acquiring a language.

In contrast to Loschky (1994), Ellis (1995) obtained encouraging results of the

effect of negotiation of meaning. In the study, the participants were 51 high-school

students, being divided into a Premodified Input (PM) group and an Interactionally

Modified (IM) group. All the subjects experienced a pretest, two posttests, and a

follow-up test; the treatment was a listen-and-do task. The findings revealed that the

students in the Interactionally Modified group significantly outscored (p


41/91

participants contained 6 NSs of English and 34 ESL adult learners; 27 out of 34

learners were considered lower-intermediate level and were randomly assigned to 4

groups: 3 treatment groups (Interactors, Interactor Unreadies, Observers, and Scripted)

as well as 1 control group; 7 out of 34 learners were low level, being assigned to a

group that received the same treatment to one of the experimental groups but was at a

lower level. The researcher used Chi-square and repeated-measures ANOVA to

estimate language development and group comparison in terms of test scores. The

results showed the subjects who had opportunities to interact with their interlocutors

not only made gains but also maintained the gains throughout the tests. The findings

of the study illustrate the significant effect of interaction on language development.

In consistence with Mackey (1999), Gass and Varonis (1994) found a beneficial

effect of interaction on L2 acquisition. Gass and Varonis (1994) examined the

relationship among input, interaction, and language production. There were 32

subjects, who were randomly assigned into 16 native-nonnative dyads. The 16 pairs

were divided into two groups: a modified input group and an unmodified input group;

then, the two groups were divided into subgroups, depending on if interaction was

permitted. Each member in a dyad had to engage in the task twice. The first time,

a NS described where to put objects on a board to his/her partner. The second time,

a NNS described where to locate an item to his/her partner. The results revealed

33


42/91

NNSs made the fewest errors when receiving modified input and were allowed to

negotiate meaning with their interlocutor (24/80 errors, or 30%). On the contrary,

NNSs made the most errors when receiving unadjusted input and were not permitted

to interact with their interlocutor (47/80 possible errors, 59%), indicating the positive

effect of modified input on listening comprehension and the importance of interaction

in terms of language production.

One of the advantages of negotiation of meaning in terms of language

acquisition is that learners are forced to produce output (Swain, 1985). According to

Swain (1985), learners need not only comprehensible input but also comprehensible

output in order to achieve native-like proficiency. Having recognized the importance

of output in L2 learning, Ellis (1999) did a study investigating the effects of

premodified input, interactionally modified input, and modified output on the

listening comprehension and the acquisition of words. The participants were 50

college students and 1 teacher. The researchers employed a multifactorial design

and three intact classes were involved, including a Premodified (PM) Group, an

Interactionally Modified (IM) Group, and an Output (OP) Group. All the subjects did

a pretest, recognition of target words, and 5 posttests, a picture-matching test as well

as tests of a capacity to orally give directions to their interlocutors. The treatment

was a listen-and-do task. The researcher adopted MANOVA and univariate F tests to

34


43/91

estimate the listening comprehension scores and the scores for posttests. ANOVA

was employed to analyze the data. The findings revealed that the OP group

outscored the PM and IM group in terms of listening comprehension, word

recognition, and word production; the differences were, however, only significant in

one of the posttests, illustrating although producing output aids L2 acquisition, how

long the effect can last is still questionable. Furthermore, the findings of this study

contradict the study of Ellis (1994): the interactionally modified group outperformed

the premodified group, possibly because of the time for interaction being unlimited.

Ellis et al. (1994) conducted a study examining the effect of negotiation for

meaning on the listening comprehension and the acquisition of word meanings. The

researchers adopted a dual-study method. Both studies occurred in Japan, one was

in Saitama city and the other in Tokyo. In the Saitama study, the subjects were 79

3rd-year high-school students. In the Tokyo Study, the participants were 127 1st-year

high-school students. There were three groups: a baseline group, a premodified group,

and an interactionally modified group. The instruments contained a pretest and three

posttests; the treatment was a listen-and-do task. In both studies, the participants in

the interactionally modified group comprehended more input than those in the

premodified and baseline group. In the Tokyo study, separate ANOVAs were used to

measure the vocabulary acquisition. The results showed that the PM and the IM

35


44/91

groups outscored the B group on all three vocabulary tests (p


45/91

3. Do students in the interactionally modified group retain more words than those in

the baseline group?

Definition of Terms

1. Studentsin this study referred to freshmen at Ming Chuan University.

2. Baseline group referred to the group in which there was no interaction between

the teacher and the students.

3. Interactionally modified group referred to the group in which students were

encouraged to interact with their teacher..

4. Interactionin this study referred to an English teachers utterances used to check

students listening comprehension and students questions used to ask for

clarification.

5. Inputin this study referred to an English teachers utterances.

6. Comprehension in this study referred to whether or not students were able to

understand the teachers utterances by examining the number of items they

accurately placed on a matrix picture of kitchen

7. Recognition of words in the study referred to correct translation of an English

word into Chinese through the means of an immediate posttest.

8. Retention of words in the study referred to students correct translation of an

English word into Chinese through the means of two delayed posttests.

37


46/91


47/91

and their initial English-learning ages ranged from 6 to 15. Table 1 displays the

demographic distribution of the two groups. The female Chinese teacher whose

English is like a native English speaker and who is a very experienced English teacher

at MCU was responsible for composing the treatment in this study.

Table. 1 Demographic Table of Participants

Group Gender Age Range Initial

English-Learning Age

Control

(Baseline)

Male (n= 18)

Female (n= 26)

18-19

19-20

8-13

7-13

Experiment

(Interactionally

Modified)

Male (n= 17)

Female (n= 34)

18-21

18-20

6-13

6-12

Design

Two intact classes were involved in this study. One of the two existing classes

at MCU was the Baseline Group (B), the control group (n= 44), and the other was

Interactionally Modified Group (IM), the experimental group (n = 51). There was

one independent variable, interaction, and two dependent variables, listening

comprehension and word recognition. Both groups experienced the following:

1. The pretests, administered to all subjects one week before the commencement of

the experiment, including vocabulary translation, reading comprehension, and

listening comprehension.

39


48/91

2. The treatment, a listening comprehension task performed by the same English

teacher and completed within two consecutive periods of class (approximately 100

minutes).

3. The Immediate Posttest, immediately administered to all the participants after the

treatment.

4. The Two Delayed Posttests, one conducted a week after the immediate posttest

and the other a week after the first.

Because there was 7-day duration between each posttest, one might question

about the possibility of intervention in the posttests. However, the 7-day duration

between each posttest was not considered long to allow intervention to take place.

First of all, the target words in the posttests did not occur in the participants

textbooks, and the content of their practical English class was irrelevant to those

words in the posttests in the current study. Moreover, the subjects of this study were

all non-English majors with a 3-hour English class every week. The chance of their

English being enhanced by other external factors within 7 days was slim and therefore,

was beyond the concern of the study.

Although the study replicated much the study by Ellis, Tanaka, Yamazaki

(1994), the design of the current study was slightly different from that in the study of

Ellis et al. (1994). The following explains the difference:

40


49/91

1. The content of the pretest in the study of Ellis et al. (1994) included the translation

of vocabulary; however, the pretests in the present study contained not only the

translation of vocabulary but also reading comprehension, and listening

comprehension.

2. The subjects in the study of Ellis et al. (1994) were asked to match the target

words with the corresponding pictures in the third posttest. In the current study,

however, the students were asked to do the translation of the target words.

Instruments

Pilot Study.A pilot study was conducted in July 2006 to investigate whether

there were significant differences between the baseline group and the interactionally

modified group in terms of listening comprehension as well as vocabulary acquisition.

Forty-one subjects (19 in the control group and 22 in the experimental group) who

attended English summer class at Ming Chuan University (MCU) were involved in

the pilot study. Those participants English proficiency was considered low because

students who go to summer classes at MCU are those who did not meet the

requirements in their classes.

In the pilot study, the subjects were asked to translate 20 target words into

Chinese in the pretest, Posttest 1, and Posttest 2, but in Posttest 2, the order of the

41


50/91

target words was changed to avoid the effect of test-taking skills; that is, to prevent

the students from reciting the answers to each item. The students were awarded one

point when accurately translating a target lexical item into Chinese. Posttest 3 was a

picture-matching test, and students obtained one point when correctly matching a

word to its corresponding picture. With respect to the treatment, the students were

given a matrix picture of a kitchen and 20 pictures related to kitchen utensils and food.

To demonstrate their listening comprehension, the participants had to locate each

object in the right position on the matrix picture of the kitchen according to the

teachers directions and again, the students could obtain one point when identifying

the right object and placing it in the right location.

A two-sample t test was employed to analyze the data, and the results of the

pilot study revealed that the IM group significantly outscored the B group (p.05). It should be noted, moreover, that the

subjects in both IM and B groups scored slightly higher in Posttest 3 than in Posttests

1 and 2, which was a strange phenomenon because students memory, generally

speaking, is usually decreased subsequently. Possibly, compared to the format of

Posttests 1 and 2, translation, the format of Posttest 3, picture matching was easier

since students could randomly match each word to a picture without knowing the

42


51/91

meanings of those target words. Due to the small subject pool, finally, the results

could not be generalized to other settings. In sum, owing to the small size of the

subjects and the flaws of the format on the posttests, it was necessary to conduct the

present study.

Pretests.The purpose of the pretests was to investigate if the participants in this

study were similar in their English proficiency. The pretests contained a vocabulary

test as well as listening and reading comprehension tests. Forty target words

constituted the content of the vocabulary pretest, which was in the form of translation;

the participants scored one point when correctly translating a target word into Chinese.

In order to measure the subjects general English proficiency, multiple choice

listening and reading comprehension tests were also administered. There were 45

questions on the listening comprehension test and 40 questions on the reading

comprehension test. One point was awarded when choosing the right answer.

Immediate Posttest.The posttest was immediately administered to the students

after the treatment to examine its effect on the acquisition of vocabulary. The

content of the immediate posttests was 20 target words which were randomly selected

from the 40 target words in the vocabulary pretest. The participants were required to

translate the 20 words related to kitchen utensils and kitchen verbs into Chinese.

The subjects were awarded one point when accurately translating a word into

43


52/91

Chinese.

Two Delayed Posttests. Two delayed posttests were given to the subjects to

investigate their retention of the vocabulary. The first delayed posttest was

administered one week after the immediate posttest, and the second was one week

after the first. The other 20 target words which were not yet chosen from the

vocabulary pretest formed the content of the first delayed posttest. Regarding the

content of the second delayed posttest, it was constituted by another 20 lexical items

randomly selected from the 40 lexical items on the vocabulary pretest. In both

delayed posttests, the students were given one point when correctly translating a word

into Chinese.

The contents and purposes of the pretest and posttest were introduced, and the

reliability of the tests is presented in the following. Kuder-Richardson formula 20

(Henning, 1987, p. 84) was used to estimate the reliability of the tests in this study.

The results showed that the reliability of the pretest for vocabulary was 0.68, the

pretest for the listening comprehension was 0.71, and the pretest for the reading

comprehension was 0.71. For the posttests, the reliability of the immediate posttest

was 0.58, the first delayed posttest was 0.59, and the second delayed posttest was 0.45.

Table2 shows the reliability of the tests.

In this study, the focus of the investigation was on the acquisition of vocabulary,

44


53/91

but not on phrases or idioms because vocabulary represents an essential part in L2

learning.

Table 2. Reliability of the Tests

TestPretest

(Vocabulary)

Pretest

(Reading)

Pretest

(Listening)

Immediate

Posttest

Delayed

Posttest 1

Delayed

Posttest 2

Number of

Items40 40 45 20 20 20

Reliability 0.68 0.71 0.71 0.57 0.59 0.44

Number of Items for Reliability

Coefficient to be Increased60 56 102

Desired

Reliability0.8 0.8 0.8

As can be seen in Table 2, the reliability of the posttests were not high,

especially the reliability of the second delayed posttest. Hence, to obtain desired

reliability, another formula was adopted, the purpose of which was to realize how

many items should be added in order to reach the desired reliability, which was set at

0.8. The results revealed that the reliability of 0.8 can be reached if there are 60

items in the immediate posttest, 56 in the first delayed posttest and 102 in the second

delayed posttest.

45


54/91

Treatment

The treatment was a listen-and-do task in which the participants had to listen to

a set of directions given by the teacher. The purpose of the treatment was to learn

the subjects general comprehension of the directions given by the teacher; rather than

to examine their proficiency in listening. The subjects were given a matrix picture

of the kitchen and several pictures related to kitchen utensils and kitchen verbs. The

participants were asked to choose and number the pictures on their matrix picture of

the kitchen according to the teachers directions to demonstrate their listening

comprehension. The participants were awarded one point if they (a) selected the

correct picture, and (b) numbered the picture in the right position on the matrix

picture of the kitchen.

Both B group and IM group listened to the same version of the input, the

baseline input; for example:

There is a rolling pin. Put the rolling pin on the table, near the chair.

Can you find the ladle? Put the ladle in the sink.

The listening comprehension task, however, was performed in two different ways.

Baseline Group (B). Participants in the control group listened to the baseline

version of the directions given by the teacher. There was a short pause between each

direction in order to give students time to write down the answer on their matrix

picture of the kitchen. There was no interaction between the teacher and students,

46


55/91

that is, the teacher ignored students questions.

Interactionally Modified Group (IM). Participants in the experimental group

listened to the baseline version of the directions given by the teacher. The students

in the experimental group were allowed to interact with the teacher when feeling

confused with the input. In order to avoid the students reluctance of asking for

clarification, some formulas of the questions used for clarification requests were

written on the blackboard; for instance,

Again, please.

Could you speak more slowly?

What is a _________?

Where is a __________?

The time for interaction was not limited. The teacher was told not to use body

language to assist students comprehension so as to ensure that the participants

comprehension was the result of spoken input. The interaction between the teacher

and the students was both audio- and videotaped, and transcripts were derived from

the taping. The teacher finally collected the matrix pictures of the kitchen at the end

of the treatment.

Procedure

1. The pretests were given to all the participants a week prior to the commencement

of the treatment. The pretests involved the translation of 40 target words into

47


56/91

Chinese, a listening comprehension test which included 45 items and a reading

comprehension test that contained 40 items. The translation of vocabulary lasted

about 15 minutes, the listening comprehension test 50 minutes, and the reading

comprehension 50 minutes. The students were permitted to make

circumlocution when translating the target words. Both the listening and reading

comprehension tests were in the form of multiple-choice.

2. After the pretests was the treatment, a listen-and-do task, which was performed by

the same teacher. The subjects were given a matrix picture of a kitchen as well

as 31 pictures related to kitchen utensils and verbs. The treatment was

completed within two periods of class (about 100 minutes). During the treatment,

both the B group and the IM group received the baseline input, but only the

participants in the IM group were encouraged to negotiate meaning with the

teacher. That is, while the participants in the IM group could ask for clarification

until they understood the input, the subjects in the B group could listen to the

input only once.

3.

An immediate posttest was given to all the subjects after the treatment. The

students were given 10 minutes to translate 20 target words which were randomly

selected from the 40 target words in the vocabulary pretests into Chinese. The

students were told that the use of circumlocution was permitted in case they did

48


57/91

not know the exact translation of a target word into Chinese.

4. A delayed posttest was given to all the students one week after the immediate

posttest. The delayed posttest involved the translation of 20 target words, the

other 20 words which were not yet chosen from the vocabulary pretest. The

subjects had to complete the translation within 10 minutes, and circumlocution

was allowed.

5. The other delayed posttest was given to all the participants one week after the first

delayed posttest. The other 20 target words which were randomly selected from

the 40 words in the vocabulary pretest formed the content of the second delayed

posttest. Again, the translation of the 20 words was finished within 10 minutes,

and circumlocution was acceptable.

Table 3. Experimental procedure

Week Test/Treatment Activity

1 Pretest Translation of vocabulary

Reading comprehension

Listening comprehension

2 Treatment Listen-and-do task

2 Immediate Posttest Translation of vocabulary

3 Delayed Posttest 1 Translation of vocabulary

4 Delayed Posttest 2 Translation of vocabulary

Data Analysis

A two sample t-test was adopted to examine the differences of mean scores of

49


58/91

the pretests, the listening comprehension task and the three posttests between the B

group and IM group. A two-sample ttest was set at a significant level of p< 0.05.

50


59/91

Chapter Four

Results

This chapter serves to answer the research questions of this study. In order to

investigate whether there were any differences between the baseline (B) group and

interactionally modified (IM) group, a two-sample ttest was employed to analyze the

mean scores for pretests, comprehension of directions, and three posttests.

Descriptive and inferential scores are reported below for pretests, comprehension of

directions as well as the acquisition of vocabulary.

Pretest Scores

A pretest was administered to all 96 subjects one week prior to the

commencement of the experiment, the purpose of which was to investigate whether

the subjects ability to recognize those target words and their general English

proficiency were similar to one another. The content of the vocabulary pretest

contained 40 English words which were related to kitchen utensils and kitchen verbs.

The 40 words in the pretest were carefully examined by the researcher in order to

ensure they did not appear in the participants textbook, and the purpose of the

examination was to make sure that the acquisition of vocabulary came from the effect

of treatment rather than from the effect of learning in regular class instruction. The

51


60/91

maximum score on the vocabulary test was 40, the listening comprehension test was

45, and the reading comprehension test was 45.

The vocabulary pretest was in a form of translation; all subjects were required

to translate each English vocabulary word into Chinese. Circumlocution was

allowed in case the students may have forgotten the exact translation of a word and

the purpose of which was to realize how many words the participants had already

recognized before the treatment. Regarding the listening as well as the reading

comprehension tests, they were in a form of multiple-choice. The two

comprehension tests were to investigate the subjects knowledge in grammar as well

as their capacity to comprehend daily conversations, advertisements, and short

passages.

As can be seen in Table 4, the mean scores of the participants in the two groups

on the three pretests were quite close. In the vocabulary test, the mean score of the

B group was 2.73, and the IM group was 2.8. In terms of the listening

comprehension test, the B group scored a mean of 19.52 and the IM group 17.61.

For the reading comprehension test, the B group obtained a mean of 25.25, and the IM

group 25.22. A two-sample ttest revealed that the B group and the IM group were

not statistically different on the three pretests. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude

that the subjects ability to recognize the target words and their general English

52


61/91

proficiency were similar. The findings of the pretests on vocabulary, listening

comprehension as well as reading comprehension are reported in Table 3.

Table 4. Descriptive & Inferential of Pretests Scores on Vocabulary, Listening

Comprehension, and Reading Comprehension in Two Groups

n M t

Vocabulary

B Group 44 2.73

IM Group 51 2.80 -0.14

Listening

B Group 44 19.52

IM Group 51 17.61 1.68

Reading

B Group 44 25.25

IM Group 51 25.22 0.03

*p


62/91

and the IM group 17.06. A two-sample t test indicated there was a statistically

significant difference between the two groups, p


63/91

was 20. It is obvious, as displayed in Table 6, the students in the IM group scored

higher than those in the B group across all posttests.

In the immediate posttest, the B group scored a mean of 2.93 and the IM group

4.31. A two-sample t test indicated that the difference was statistically significant

(p


64/91

Table 6. Descriptive & Inferential Posttests Scores in Two Groups

n M t

Immediate Posttest

B Group 44 2.93

IM Group 51 4.31 -2.84*

Delayed Posttest 1

B Group 44 2.43

IM Group 51 3.27 -2.32*

Delayed Posttest 2

B Group 44 2.50

IM Group 51 3.51 -2.66*

*p .05) between the subjects initial English-learning age and their

scores on the three posttests.

56


65/91

Chapter Five

Discussion

This chapter summarizes and discusses the major findings of the current study

and offers pedagogical implications. Limitations of the present study as well as

suggestions for future research are also included.

The first research question concerns whether interaction enhances listening

comprehension. The result of this experimental study confirms the previous findings

(e.g., Pica et al., 1987; Ellis et al., 1994; Loschky, 1999). The participants in the IM

group, who engaged in negotiation for meaning, significantly outscored those in the B

group on the listening comprehension task (p


66/91

(3)The students profited from the contextual assistance, that is, they related oral input

to the pictures (Krashen, 1985).

(4)The subjects in the IM group might take the advantage of grammatical input

modifications, including simplification as well as elaboration (Ellis, 1994b).

One of the features was the adjustment of speech rate. One instance from the

current study which demonstrates the use of simplification is presented as follows:

T: There is a dishtowel. Hang the dish towel on the handle of the freezer.

S: What is a dishtowel?

T: A dishtowel is a tool for washing plates, bowls, and cleaning. Hang the dish

towel on the handle of the freezer.Hang the dish towel on the handle of the

freezer. (The teacher slowed down the speech rate when producing this

sentence.)

Elaboration refers to the use of synonyms, paraphrase or the provision of information

which helps to contextualize the non-understanding item. One example of

elaboration from the present study is shown as follows:

S: What is a ladle?

T: A ladle is a spoonwith a long handle.

S: A bigger spoon?

T: Yes. If you want to take out some soup, you can use a ladle. Is it ok? A ladle.

The teacher used a simple word, spoon, to explain what a ladle is; furthermore, the

teacher provided the students with information (take out some soup) which helped

them to contextualize the target word, ladle. The significant effect of interaction on

comprehension in the present study, hence, supports Longs (1980) argument:

interactional modifications aid moment-by-moment comprehension.

58


67/91

The second research question asks about whether interaction leads students to

recognize more target words relative to non-interaction. The subjects in the IM

group, who had opportunities to negotiate for meaning, significantly outscored the B

group on the immediate posttest (p


68/91

IM group would completely acquire the words on the posttests which they had

correctly translated into Chinese, nor did we argue that the effect of negotiation of

meaning on the acquisition of vocabulary would be definitely long.

Pedagogical Implications

The results of the present study have provided evidence that interaction has a

positive effect on not only listening comprehension but also on the acquisition of

vocabulary. Therefore, some implications for L2 teaching are as follows.

First of all, the results of this study support the findings of the previous studies

(e.g., Pica et al., 1987; Loschky, 1989; Ellis et al., 1994) concerning the positive

effect of interaction on listening comprehension. It is suggested that, therefore,

teachers may employ tasks which involve negotiation strategies, such as

comprehension and confirmation checks, clarification requests, repetitions as well as

elaborations to facilitate students listening comprehension (Pica, et al., 1994).

Moreover, instruction that involves more interaction between teacher and students

might be more desirable than instruction which is lecturing-orientation for L2 learning

if input is to be comprehensible to students. When interaction is encouraged in the

classroom, listening comprehension is likely to be enhanced greatly.

In addition, because of the significant effect of negotiation of meaning on the

60


69/91

acquisition of vocabulary in the current study, rather than having students use rote

learning or mechanical drills to acquire vocabulary, teachers may design activities

involving negotiated interaction to provide students with a more effective way to

acquire vocabulary. In sum, according to the findings of the present study,

interaction results in the acquisition of more words than non-interaction. This may

imply that the traditional teaching method which includes the use of drills, rote

learning, and the instruction for the B group of this study are less effective than the

communicative approach which often encourages interaction in terms of vocabulary

teaching and learning. It is, therefore, suggested teachers implement

negotiation-interaction tasks when teaching vocabulary.

Limitations of the Current Study and Suggestions for Future Research

Although the study demonstrated a significant effect of interaction on listening

comprehension and the acquisition of vocabulary, it still has its limitations.

First, the present study focuses on the recognition of target words, but the

production of vocabulary, such as spelling or speaking were not included.

Accordingly, we have no knowledge whether or not the participants in the study fully

acquired the vocabulary. Secondly, it is uncertain from the current study whether or

not the effect of interaction on vocabulary learning can last long because the treatment

in the experiment was short and the duration between each posttest was only one

61


70/91

week.

For researchers who feel interested in conducting a study related to this topic,

they may examine the effect of interaction on the production of vocabulary, such as

spelling and speaking. It is, additionally, also suggested to extend the treatment

session as well as to include more items in each test.

Summary

Motivated by the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1983, 1996), this study was

conducted to explore the effect of negotiation of meaning on listening comprehension

and the acquisition of vocabulary. A quasi-experimental method with a

pretests-and-posttests design was adopted in order to compare the scores of the two

groups (a baseline group and an interactionally modified group). During the

treatment session, all the subjects were required to complete a listen-and-do ta

input interaction and language learning

Documents