interactional hypothesis
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
INTERACTIONAL HYPOTHESIS
Royal University of Phnom PenhInstitute of Foreign Languages
Department of English
(Michael H. Long)
Group: 12Mr. BUT BorethMr. CHEA Piseth
Class: E4.5Year 2010-2011
Applied Linguistics 401Course lecturer:
Mr. MEAS Sopheak
1
![Page 2: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
OUTLINE
I. Introduction- Krashen’s input hypothesis- Long’s interactional hypothesis- Definition
II. How does the theory work?III. Limitation of Interactional
Hypothesis PerspectiveIV. Conclusion
2
![Page 3: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
I. Introduction
- Krashen’s Input Hypothesis:
in order to be acquired (Krashen, 1985).
Second language input must both be:- Comprehended
- be at one stage above the learner’s current level (i+1)
Recall Stephen D. Krashen
3
![Page 4: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
I. Introduction (Con’t)
Based on Krashen’s Input Hypothesis
- Concerning how input is made comprehensible
- Focus on modified input
- Modified input Negotiated interaction Communicating
Michael H. Long
- Long’s Interactional Hypothesis:
4
![Page 5: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Definition:
I. Introduction (Con’t)
Interactional hypothesis referred to when learners engaged with their interlocutors in negotiations around meaning, the nature of the input might be qualitatively changed. (Long 1981, 1983a, 1996)
5
![Page 6: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
II. How does the theory work?
Interactional Hypothesis
Modified Interaction
Conversational Adjustment
Comprehension of input
Language acquisition
6
![Page 7: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
II. How does the theory work? (Con’t)
Types of modified input:
Pre-modified input: when the speech of NS is characterized with decreased complexity, but increased length and redundancy like foreigner talk.
Interactionally modified input: NS provides opportunities for NS-NNS interaction.
7
![Page 8: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
- Facilitation of comprehension by input modification (to overwhelm some communicative difficulties) :
II. How does the theory work? (Con’t)
(i) Repetition:- You said.....- To put it differently or in another way, .....- In other words.....
- Language users struggle to maximize comprehension- The more adjustment within interaction The more input becomes comprehensible
8
![Page 9: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
II. How does the theory work? (Con’t)
NNS*: what are they (.) what do they do your picture?NS**: what are they doing in my picture?NS: there's there's just a couple more thingsNNS: a sorry? Couple?
(ii) Confirmation Checks:
NNS*: Non-Native SpeakerNS**: Native Speaker
9
![Page 10: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
II. How does the theory work? (Con’t)
(iii) Comprehension Checks:Do you understand?
Is this clear? Do you see that...?
(iv) Clarification Request:Could you say that again?Could you elaborate?What do you mean by this...?
10
![Page 11: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
III. Limitation of IH Perspective
interaction facilitates comprehension (not cause it)
when learners have opportunity to signal their non-understanding and try to ask for clarification
(Ellis, 1999)
1
11
![Page 12: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
III. Limitation of IH Perspective
comprehension does not depend on negotiation.
Learners may benefit from the dialogic interaction by other learners (Ellis, 1999)
2
(Con’t)12
![Page 13: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
III. Limitation of IH Perspective
the most important factor to acquisition of word meaning is range (different contexts). (Ellis, 1999)
Input and interaction alone are not enough to learn a target language
3
(Con’t)
4
Individual differences have been neglected(Ellis, 1999, & Ziglari, 2008)
5
13
![Page 14: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
III. Limitation of IH Perspective
Interactional hypothesis has an atomistic(1) aspect, while language is, in fact, holistic(2) and dynamic.
(Ellis, 1999, & Van Lier, 2004)
modified input just facilitates acquisition of word meanings not the whole utterance
6
(Con’t)
(1) atomistic: Consisting of many separate, often disparate elements(2) holistic: Concerned with wholes rather than analysis or separation into parts
14
![Page 15: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
IV. Conclusion
- There is a rich literature to support that there is a link between interaction and learning. (Ellis, 1999)
- IH ideas are easily translatable into language classes.
- IH in class the class would be enjoyable, creative and initiative.
15
![Page 16: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Thanks for your attention
Q&A
16
![Page 17: Interactional hypothesis](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062904/58798e321a28ab95318b5257/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
References17
Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Rouledge-Taylor & Francis: New York. Krashen, S. (1983). Newmark’s “Ignorance Hypothesis” and current second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning , pp.135-153. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Long, M. 1981: Input, interaction, and second language acquisition . Foreign Language Acquisition: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , (379) , 259 78. Long, M. 1983: Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers . Studies in Second Language Acquisition , (5) , 177 93. Long, M.H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition, pp. 377-393. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Long, M. 1996: The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition . In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press , 413 68.
Mitchell, R. ,& Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories (Second Edition). Hodder Arnold: UK. Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Xu, F. (2010). The Role of Input and Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Cross-Cultural Communication. Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 11-17. Canada. Ziglari, L. (2008). The Role of Interaction in L2 Acquisition: An Emergentist Perspective. European Journal of Scientific Research. Vol.23 No.3, pp.446-453.