International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research. Vol.

, 4 (6), 350-353, 2015

Available online at http://www.isicenter.org
ISSN 2147-3749 2015

Interaction Hypothesis: An Insufficient Explanation for Second Language

Acquisition
Sara Ebrahimi*

Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

*
Corresponding Author Email: Ebrahimi_sara62@yahoo.com

Abstract

Based on the interaction hypothesis, it can be concluded that the hypothesis provides a
general framework for language acquisition which made a valuable contribution for second
language research through emphasizing classroom interaction and also its relationship to
learners' understanding and learning. However, based on some shortcomings of the
hypothesis, some revisions are required as to make the theory more applicable to practical
learning situations, such as the noticing hypothesis which may partly eliminate the problem.
So it is proposed that the hypothesis should be applied with caution in the classroom since
there is not enough certainty.

Keywords: Interaction hypothesis, Noticing hypothesis, Recast.

Introduction

There is now widespread compromise that the oral interactions in which second language (L2) learners participate
provide one of the main mediums for L2 acquisition. The interaction hypothesis provides one theoretical account of
relationship between oral interaction and L2 acquisition (Long, 1983). The interaction hypothesis puts forward two major
claims about the role of interaction in L2 acquisition. The first one is the comprehensible input which is a necessary
component for L2 acquisition and the second one is modifications to the interactional structure of conversations which take
place in the process of negotiating a communication problem. The ultimate purpose of these negotiations is making the
input comprehensible to an L2 learner.
Furthermore, in the interactional approach to L2 input proposed by Long, input is defined as the linguistic forms
(morphemes, words, utterances)-the streams of speech in the air-directed at the non-native speaker (Long, 1983) and the
analysis of interaction means describing the functions of those forms in (conversational) discourse (Long, 1983,).
The origins of these claims can be attributed to the work of Krashen and to the statements of Hatch. He emphasized the
importance of 'simple codes' (e.g. foreigner and interlanguage talk) and of extra linguistic context for making input
comprehensible. Furthermore, he claimed that language production plays no direct role in language acquisition.
Hatch (1978) applied a 'discourse analysis' approach to study the interactions which exists among children and adult
L2 learners and concluded that the regularities in the way that children acquire a grammar of L2 is the result of the kinds of
interaction in which they participated. The order of grammatical feature acquisition reflects the frequency with which
features occur in the input. In other words, the frequency of these features is contingent up on the attempts that native
speakers and learners make in establishing and developing a topic through interaction. By linguistic features, Long (1989)
referred to linguistic aspects of foreigner talk such as the breadth of vocabulary and the overall sentence complexity. By
interactional features, he referred to communicative aspects of foreigner talk such as clarification requests, confirmation
checks, comprehension checks, repairing and the use of preventives (Pica & Doughty, 1985).

350
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(6), 350-353, 2015

The interaction hypothesis is also closely associated with the work of Pica. Pica's main contribution has not been in the
area of theory construction but in conducting carefully designed experimental studies which are designed to test the claims
of the interaction hypothesis. However, she extended the interaction hypothesis and added a major component to Long's
hypothesis. In this vein, she emphasized the importance of the social relationship between the participants as a determining
factor in interactional modifications (Pica, 1987). She asserted that in this social relationship, the learners and the
interlocutors are cognizant about their unequal linguistic proficiencies in the second language but since the learners' purpose
is to fulfill their goal in language learning, they consider equivalent status for themselves and the interlocutors. In other
words, in a situation in which the conversational partners share a symmetrical role relationship, maximum opportunities for
interactional restructuring are provided. Therefore, the hypothesis propounds that we can make language more
comprehensible by engaging in meaningful interaction.
Based on the hypothesis put forward by Long and later extended by Pica, Long elaborated his hypothesis and
introduced utilitarian examples for applying his ideals in experimental situations. For example, Long (1989) argue that
teachers should make efforts to use fewer display questions because these inhibit the restructuring of interaction that
promotes acquisition through comprehensible input. Elsewhere, in Long and Porter (1985), Long proposed that group work
should be encouraged in L2 classes since it promotes better opportunity for modifying the structure of interactions. Long
(1989) has also argued in favor of certain kinds of tasks since they produce more and more useful negotiation work. In
addition to reemphasizing the importance of two-way over one-way tasks, Long also proposes that closed tasks (i.e. a task
with a single or a finite set of correct solutions) work better than open tasks.
Although the theory enjoyed a worldwide popularity in its own time, but several objections are targeted towards it. Many of
the theoretical objections have focused on part one of the hypothesis - the claim that comprehensible input is necessary for
acquisition.
In the same vein, Sharwood-Smith (1986) claims that the processes of comprehension and acquisition are not the same.
He suggests that input has a 'dual relevance'. It means that there is one type of input that will help the learner to interpret the
meaning and there is another input that helps the learner to construct her inters language. Now based on these two types of
input, Sharwood-Smith refers to different nature of processes. In the case of comprehension, just the surface structure of
the input needs to be analyzed by the learner and subsequently the input is just briefly stored in the memory. In the case of
acquisition, the learner needs to undertake both a surface structure analysis and a semantic representation of the input. The
input has to be held in memory sufficiently long for a comparison, between its representation and whatever representation is
provided by the learner's rules of grammar. Without such a comparison no restructuring of the current grammar can take
place. A similar claim has been put forward by Faerch and Kasper (1986).
They argue that acquisition only occurs when there is a 'gap' between the input and the learner's current knowledge and
specifically when the learner perceives the gap as a gap in knowledge, acquisition would take place. Accordingly, the focus
of attention and noticing of mismatches between the input and the learners' output determines whether or not they progress,
and that noticing, or conscious perception (for which attention is a prerequisite), is necessary and sufficient for converting
input into intake (Schmidt, 1990). Similarly, White (1987) argues that simplified input will not help a learner to discover
certain facts about the target language such as the reference alternatives of the English pronoun system. She points out that
input consisting of simple sentences will not help the learner to discover how to treat pronouns in complex sentences.
Generally speaking, a characteristic of these objections is the rejection of any role for simplified input in L2 (or L1)
acquisition. Sharwood-Smith (1986) argues that simplified input functions as an aid to comprehension but not to
acquisition. As a matter of fact, negotiation, along with certain classroom activities such as teacher explanation, can bring
particular forms to a learners attentionforms that might otherwise remain unnoticedand thus enhance the input
(Sharwood-Smith, 1986).
To put it another way, both Sharwood-Smith and White argue that simplified input is treacherous to language
acquisition because it deprives the learner of useful structural information about the target language grammar.
Another objection is related to total elimination of the necessity for comprehensible input. White (1987), for instance, has
argued that some grammatical features cannot be acquired purely on the basis of positive evidence (i.e. comprehensible
input) and require negative input (i.e. feedback that draws conscious attention to the existence of the features). She notes
that learners not only have to add new rules but also to lose transitional rules. Therefore the acquisition of the new rules is
not solely dependent on the input, even if it is well-adjusted. In fact, in White's opinion, it is better to bring the difference
between the learner's interim rules and the target language rules to the learner's conscious attention. Furthermore, White
(1987) has argued that when learners encounter input that is incomprehensible because their interlanguage rules do not
permit a particular L2 structure, they may be pushed to modify those interlanguage rules to accommodate the structure.
Thus, comprehension difficulties can provide important negative feedback to the learner. The gist of White's claim is that
input is not enough and that learners are equipped to go beyond the input.
The second criticism swivels round the idea that Long does not present any arguments for differentiating the effects of
the various interactional modifications in his comprehensible input hypothesis, so it must be presumed that it is the quantity

351
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(6), 350-353, 2015

rather than quality of the modifications that is important for acquisition. However, both Long (1983) and Pica (1987),
embrace the comprehensible output hypothesis of Swain. Furthermore, both Long (1983) and Pica (1987) ascertain that
several interactional modifications may be more helpful than others. For instance, requests for clarification (e.g. 'Pardon')
enable the learner to clarify what she has said, whereas confirmation checks do not because they solve the communication
problem for the learner. In effect, both Long and Pica advocate the qualitative effects of different types of adjustments.
However, it should be noted that these qualitative effects apply only to production. Where comprehension is concerned
there is no mention of the type of adjustment, rather the quantity of interactional features was the main concern.
Another criticism about interactional modifications can be related to the fact that they may occur for other purposes
than for negotiating meaning. Aston (1986) has argued that learners may take appeal to 'trouble shooting procedures' in
order to fulfill the psycholinguistic requirements of the interaction hypothesis. He notes that trouble shooting procedures
can be employed to deal with troubles of acceptability. In other words, learner may use these strategies only for the sake of
pretending that they are following the acceptable rules and behaviors. Thus, modification to the structure of interaction
occurs when the participants need to achieve a formal display of conformity. In such cases, Aston suggests, they may go
through a demonstration of understanding or agreement in order to show that the interaction has been successful. Aston
goes on to argue that excessive trouble-shooting procedures may threaten communication from a social point of view.

Conclusion

Based on the interaction hypothesis developed by Long and later extended by Pica, we can conclude that the
hypothesis provides a general framework for language acquisition which made a valuable contribution for second language
research through emphasizing classroom interaction and also its relationship to learners' understanding and learning.
However, based on the aforementioned shortcoming of the hypothesis, some revisions are required as to make the theory
more applicable to practical learning situations. As far as in real learning situations, the act of interactional modifications
can only be considered as a fake activity due to learner's tendency to converge with the formal behavior, the use of other
strategies by the instructors seems necessary in this regard.
Among them, the noticing hypothesis of Schmidt (1990) may partly eliminate the problem. Noticing entails the learner
attending consciously to linguistic features in the input and requires perception and storage in short term memory.
Therefore, the learner is obliged to pay conscious attention to certain features of language and it would compensate for one
of the shortcomings of the hypothesis. Of course, based on the criticism made by White (1987) and others, later on Long
(1996) asserts that the role of interactional modifications in eliciting the negative feedback cannot be ignored. According to
Long (1996), this feedback may call up on noticing of some forms: it is proposed that environmental contributions to
acquisition are mediated by selective attention and the learners developing L2 processing capacity.... negative feedback
obtained in negotiation work or elsewhere may be facilitative of SL development. Negative feedback obtained through
negotiation for meaning has been one of the issues discussed by Long. Another source discussed by Long (1996) was the
role of recasts.
Recasts have been generally defined as being a target like way of saying something that was previously formulated in a
no target like way (Oliver, 1995).
Long (1996) pointed out that recasts are often ambiguous; a learner might not be able to determine whether negative
feedback is a model of the correct version or a different way of saying the same thing
Furthermore, when learners decide to compare the new input with their current level of information, they try to identify
the difference between features noticed in the input and features currently in their own output. When the teacher provides
comprehensible input or simplified input for the learners, even if noticing is advocated by the teacher, learning would be
useless as far as there is nothing to attend to in the simplified input.
Furthermore, with regard to interactional modifications in interaction hypothesis, Fang (2010) referred to the fact that
although interaction may provide a structure that allows input to become salient and noticed, interaction should not be seen
as a cause of acquisition; it can only provide the condition for potential learning. As Long (1996) has pointed out, there are
many factors involved in L2 learning; the role of interaction is claimed only to be facilitative. The sources of learning are
complex and can be attributed to learner-internal factors.
All is all, as in any other theory of SLA proposed by different researchers, interaction hypothesis should be applied
with caution in the classroom since there is not enough certainty for example about the exact number of interactional
modifications for applying in the classroom. Therefore, the theory directs towards certain ways of intervention but the exact
quality and quantity of them would be subjected to further investigations.

352
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(6), 350-353, 2015

References

Aston G, 1986. Trouble shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier. Applied Linguistics. 7: 128-143.
Faerch C, Kasper G, 1986. The role of comprehension in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics. 7: 257-274.
Fang X, 2010. The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition. Cross-cultural Communication. 6 (1): 11-
17.
Hatch E, 1978. Discourse and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of
readings. Rowley: Newbury House.
Long M, Porter R, 1985. Group work, interlanguage talk and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly. 19: 207-228.
Long MH, 1983. Native speaker / non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied
Linguistics. 4: 126-141.
Long MH, 1989. Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL. 8: 1-25.
Long MH, 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Handbook of second language
acquisition. New York: Academic Press.
Oliver R, 1995. Negative feedback in child NS/NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 17: 459483.
Pica T, 1987. Second language acquisition, social interaction and the classroom. Applied Linguistics. 8: 1-25.
Pica T, Doughty C, 1985. The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition. 7: 223-249
Schmidt RW, 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics. 11:129158.
Sharwood-Smith M, 1986. Comprehension vs. acqusition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics. 7: 239-256.
White L, 1987. Against comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics. 8: 95-110.

353