Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:06:59.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Input, Interaction, and Second Language Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Susan M. Gass  and
Evangeline Marlos Varonis
Susan M. Gass
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Evangeline Marlos Varonis
Affiliation:
University of Akron
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The role of conversational interactions in the development of a second language has been central in the recent second language acquisition literature. While a great deal is now known about the way in which nonnative speakers interact with native speakers and other nonnative speakers, little is known about the lasting effects of these interactions on a nonnative's linguistic development. This paper specifically investigates the relationship among input, interaction, and second language production. Through data from native–nonnative speaker interactions in a direction-giving task, we show that both modified input and interaction affect task performance. However, only interaction has an effect on subsequent task performance.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 283 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

References

REFERENCES

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1987). Markedness and salience in second-language acquisition. Language Learning, 37, 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, C., Crookes, G., Day, R., & Long, M. (1986). The differential effects of corrective feedback in native-speaker conversation. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 229–236). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Bruton, A., & Samuda, V. (1980). Learner and teacher roles in the treatment of error in group work. RELC Journal, 11, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, A., Day, R., Chenoweth, A., & Luppescu, S. (1982). Errors, interaction, and correction: A study of native-nonnative conversations. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 537–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crookes, G., & Rulon, K. (1985). Incorporation of corrective feedback in native speaker/non-native speaker conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 607.Google Scholar
Day, R. (Ed.). (1986). Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Day, R., Chenoweth, A., Chun, A., & Luppescu, S. (1984). Corrective feedback in native-nonnative discourse. Language Learning, 34, 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 147–181). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1991, 04). The interactional hypothesis: A critical examination. Paper presented at the RELC Conference, Singapore.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1991, 12). ELT methodology from a learning perspective. Paper presented at Second Chulalonkorn University Conference on Language Teaching, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1986). Sex differences in NNS/NNS interactions. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327–351). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In Eisenstein, M. (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1976). Becoming bilingual: A case study of a Japanese child learning English. Language Learning, 26, 321–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knox, L. (1992, 04). Cooperative fellow speakers and the enrichment of input: An application of relevance theory. Paper delivered at the Second Language Research Forum 1992, Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1992, 03). Input, focus on form, and second language acquisition. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics annual meeting, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Long, M., & Ross, S. (1992). Modifications that preserve language and meaning. In Tickoo, M. (Ed.), Simplification. Singapore: Regional Language Center.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, D. (1993, 02). Learners and modified/negotiated interactions: What works for pronunciation. Paper presented at Second Language Acquisition-Foreign Language Learning III conference, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
Nagle, S., & Sanders, S. (1986). Comprehension theory and second language pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67, 489–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, K., & Chaudron, C. (1987). The effects of linguistic simplifications and elaborative modifications on L2 comprehension. University of Hawaii Working Papers in English as a Second Language, 6, 107–133.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 115–132). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., Berducci, D., & Newman, J. (1991). Language learning through interaction: What role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 343–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1992). Teachability theory. Unpublished manuscript, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Plough, I., & Gass, S. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 35–56). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Ross, S., Long, M., & Yano, Y. (1992, 07). Simplification or elaboration? The effects of two types of text modifications on foreign language reading comprehension. Paper presented at the Pacific Second Language Research Forum, University of Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Samuda, V., & Rounds, P. (1993). Critical episodes: Reference points for analyzing a task in action. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks from a pedagogical perspective: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 125–138). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Sato, C. (1986). Conversation and interlanguage development: Rethinking the connection. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 23–45). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Scarcella, R. (1983). Discourse accent in second language performance. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 306–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Scarcella, R. (1992). Interethnic conversation and second language acquisition: Discourse accent revisited. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 109–137). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarcella, R., & Higa, C. (1981). Input, negotiation and age differences in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 31, 409–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1986). Three approaches to the study of input. Language Learning, 36, 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SharwoodSmith, M. Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118–132.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner-Gough, K., & Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woken, M., & Swales, J. (1989). Expertise and authority in native-non-native conversations: The need for a variable account. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Discourse and pragmatics (pp. 211–227). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Zuengler, J. (1989). Performance variation in NS-NNS interactions: Ethnolinguistic difference or discourse domain? In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Discourse and pragmatics (pp. 228–244). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar