The Important of Interaction in Second Language Acquisition

Tantri Sundari/ 147 835 098

1. Introduction

This study aims at analyzing the important of interaction in second language

acquisition. Research on interaction is conducted within the framework of the Interactive
Hypothesis, which states that conversational interaction "facilitates language acquisition
because it connects input (what learners hear and read); internal learner capacities,
particularly selective attention; and output (what learners produce) in productive ways"
(Long, 1981). Interaction provides learners with opportunities to receive comprehensible
input and feedback (Gass, 2013; Pica, 1996) as well as to make changes in their own
linguistic output (Swain, 1995).

The study in this paper have tested empirically the hypothesis of interaction
and its role in SLA. Interaction has attracted more interest in the second language
acquisition (SLA) research in the last decade. Attention to pedagogical processes is
responsible in part for that growing interest in studying the influence of interaction on second
language acquisition. The research questions are: a). How modified interaction promotes
second language acquisition, b). Are there any beneficial of interaction on L2 fluency?
c). What are the positive effects of negotiation in language acquisition.

2. Literature Review
A. Second language acquisition theories on the role of interaction

The focus of language acquisition theories have traditionally been on nurture

and nature distinctions, advanced by the interactionist and nativist camps respectively.
Interactionists see language as a rule-governed cultural activity learned in interaction with
others, while nativists perceive language ability as an innate capacity to generate syntactically
correct sentences. In other words, interactionists believe environmental factors are more
dominant in language acquisition, while nativists believe inborn factors are more dominant.

Vygotsky put the basic idea of the interactionists view of language acquisition.
According to him, social interaction plays an important role in the learning process and
proposed the zone of proximal development (ZPD), where learners construct the new
language through socially mediated interaction (Brown, 2000). On the other hand, nativists
such as Krashen assume that natural internal mechanisms have the main role on the input
which leads to language competence. This is evident in Krashens input hypothesis of SLA.
Krashens input hypothesis was first proposed over 30 years ago, expanding from Chomskys
Language Acquisition Device. Since that time, there have been many theories put forward
under influence Krashens input hypothesis.

Although Vygotsky and Krashen can be categorized into distinct positions, the
application of their theories to second language teaching shares a number of similarities.
According to Krashens input hypothesis, language acquisition takes place during human
interaction in the target language environment. The learner then exposed to rich
comprehensible input in the target language. However, in order for acquisition to occur, the
input would need to be slightly beyond the learners current level of linguistic competence.

Both Vygotsky and Krashen put great emphasis on the role of interaction in SLA,
Long also believes in the importance of comprehensive input. His interaction hypothesis also
stresses the importance of comprehensible input as a major factor in second language
acquisition; however, he also believes that interactive input is more important than non-
interactive input. In addition, Long stresses the significance of interactional modifications
which occur in the negotiating meaning when communication problems arise (Ellis, 1994).

The major distinction between interactionist and nativist theories of SLA is that
scholars such as Krashen emphasize comprehensible target language input which is
one-way input and, on the contrary, interactionists acknowledge the importance of two-way
communication in the target language (Ariza & Hancock, 2003).

Interactionists agree that Krashens comprehensible input is a crucial element in the

language acquisition process, but their emphasis is on how input is made comprehensible
(Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Moreover, Krashen distinguishes between language acquisition
and language learning. This study will focus primarily on the interaction hypothesis
proposed by Long and will highlight the main claims advanced by Long and discuss
them critically in light of other competing perspectives on SLA and consider its EFL
pedagogical implications.
 B. The definition of input and interaction

In the interactional approach to L2 input proposed by Long (1983), input is defined

as the linguistic forms (morphemes, words, utterances) the streams of speech in the air
directed at the non-native speaker, whereas the analysis of interaction means describing
the functions of those forms in (conversational) discourse.

Long revealed that in NS (Native Speaker) NNS (Non-Native Speaker) interactions,

NSs modified their interactions more often and more consistently than they did the input.
Long as cited by Zhang (2009) stated that negotiation for meaning, and especially
negotiation work that triggers interaction adjustments by the NS or more competent
interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities,
particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways. The input and interaction
hypothesis combines an argument regarding the importance of input comprehension to SLA
(Krashens input hypothesis) and an argument for the value of modifications to discourse
structure for learner comprehension (Longs interaction hypothesis) (Mackey, 1999). Long
deductively argues that modifications to discourse structure (e.g., negotiated interaction and
modified input) indirectly facilitate SLA.

C. The Interaction Hypothesis

The Interaction Hypothesis by Long (1983) proposed that interaction facilitates SLA
because conversational and linguistic modifications that occur in discourse provide learners
with necessary comprehensible linguistic input. While Krashen (1985) had Input Hypothesis,
a cognitive theory that stresses the importance of linguistic input in the target language (TL)
that is slightly more advanced than what the learner has mastery of. The current state of a
learner's rule-based linguistic knowledge is designated as "i", while the slightly more
advanced input is "i+1". According to Allwright (1998) Krashens consider the relevance of
social contextual factors as conversational gambits in securing more input for the learner,
which eventually relate to the notion of an affective filter that is said to determine what input
gets through to the brain's central language acquisition mechanism.

Lightbown and Spada (2013) confirm that Long believes on what makes input to be
comprehensible is modified interaction, or negotiation of meaning. In Krashens input
hypothesis, comprehensible input itself remains the main causal variable, while Long claims
that a crucial element in the language acquisition process is the modified input that learners
are exposed to and the way in which other speakers interact in conversations with learners.

Long cited in Gass and Mackey (2002) investigates conversations between a native
speaker (NS) and non-native speaker (NNS) and proposes his interaction hypothesis as
follows: Negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional
adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it
connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in
productive ways. In other words, interactional adjustments make input comprehensible, and
comprehensible input promotes acquisition, thus interactional adjustments promote
acquisition. Carroll (2001) also summarizes Longs Interaction hypothesis as follows: this
feedback draws the learners attention to mismatches between the input and the learners
output, negotiation of meaning leads to modified interaction, which consists of various
modifications that native speakers or other interlocutors make in order to render their input
comprehensible to learners. For example, native speakers in a conversation with non-native
speakers often slow their speech down, speaking more deliberately. Further, Long (1983)
distinguished input from conversational interaction into modified input and modified
interaction. Modified input refers to modifications to the linguistic forms directed at NNS.
Theorists claim modified input may be in the forms of ungrammatical or grammatical
through varying devices (e.g., omission of grammatical factors such as articles, copula,
simplification, regularization and elaboration). They occur inconsistently in terms of
contextual factors of the learners proficiency, age and others. Modified interaction refers to
modifications to the interactional structures of NS-NNS discourse, and they are usually
in the form of clarification requests, confirmation checks, repetition, and among others (Wei,
2012).

D. The Methodology
1. Subjects

The subjects of this study are three A class students of fifth semester of Biology and
Science Education Program of UNESA. The subjects got English class on their first year, but
the next semester they didnt get English class. The reason why they were chosen as the
subject, because start from third semester, English is rarely used in their classroom. All
material and teaching process are done in Bahasa, only a view teachers sometimes use
English article and give explanation in English. Thats why they cant improve their English
speaking ability in the classroom, because the lack of opportunity, and the environment
which doesnt support them. The subjects want to improve their speaking ability, thats why
since the beginning of fifth semester (September 2015) they made their own program that is
speaking English outside the classroom, the fact that they stay at the same room of a boarding
house made them easier to do the program.

2. Instruments and Design

The instruments used to gather data for this study: i) test of oral fluency, ii) face to
face interview, iii) observation. Test oral fluency is done twice, on November and December.
It is to measure the speaking fluency and language development. The criteria of test oral
fluency is adapted from Zhang (2009), those are: (a) range of language forms which the
learner can make use of, (b) accuracy in the production of the language forms (production,
intonation, stress, grammatical and lexical features), (c), appropriateness in the use of the
language forms to convey meaning in specific context, (d) length and complexity of
the learners production, (e) fluency in conveying the spoken language. Face to face
interview and observation is used to do find out the way how they improve their English
speaking ability.

In order to evaluate all the subjects oral fluency on November, it is hold by let each
of them take the oral test by saying something which was related to their lives regardless of
their personal details, that is, age, family background, school where they studied and time
they spent in learning English. Considering they already learned the past tense on their
previous study, so the chosen the topic is What happened to you yesterday? The task was
carried one by one in the form of face-to-face interactions with me, but with the focus on the
learners productive skills they are encouraged to think aloud about what they had done on
the previous day by saying first, then, after that...occasionally.

To evaluate all the subjects oral fluency on December, they were asked to tell about
what they have learned in class this semester. They are free to pick which subject they want
to tell. The task was carried one by one in the form of face-to-face interactions with me, but
with the focus on the learners productive skills, here some modified interaction are used to
negotiate or clarify the meaning. The function of modified interaction during oral fluency test
is to encourage the subjects to tell more information about the lesson they have learned this
semester.
 Observation is used to get information of the types of modified interaction they used
to negotiate meaning and also to get the information on focus on form of their interaction.
The observation is done without telling the subjects, so it is spontaneously done when we
hang out, or spent the time on boarding house together.

To clarify the information from the observation, interview is needed. Some question
also will be asked during this session, according to their decision on choosing interaction to
improve their speaking ability.

E. Finding and Discussion

a). How modified interaction promotes second language acquisition

Table 1. Type of Modified Interaction

Frequency
No. Type of Modified interaction Example

all the time sometime never

A: Yusi will go to mall after
1. Implicit reactive feedback with school

recast B: which mall? Royal or TP?
A: TP with boy friend
2. Implicit reactive feedback without A: I buy goggle in Royal
recast B: You buy what?
A: Goggle to swimming
A: Can I borrow your blue
3. Using repetition to negotiate jilbab?

meaning B: the blue one
A: Yes
A: Hey, time to pray!
4. Using translation to negotiate B: I have period
meaning A: What do you mean by
period in Indonesia?
B: Haid
A: Tomorrow we go to
5 Confirmation checks Lidah, right?
B: Yes, right
A: I will go out
6 Clarification of request B: Can you buy me soap

A:Do you order soap or
soup?

Based on the modified negotiation model by Pica (1996) interactional theorists

intended to explore the process how negotiation of meaning leads to L2 acquisition.
During the process, several theoretical perspectives have come out to explore the conditions
for negotiated meaning leading to SLA. There are six types of modified interaction that is
used by the subjects to improve their L2 acquisition. Four of the types have high frequency,
and two of them has middle frequency. It means that during the interaction the subjects still
have difficulties in understanding the meaning of their partner said. In addition, in order to
get the clear information and to avoid the misunderstanding thats why they applied modified
negotiation. So, they can acquire the input that theyve had and can recall and use it in L2
communication.

There is a link between interaction and learning with a focus on three major
components of interaction: exposure (input), production (output), and feedback. Speakers in
conversations negotiate meaning. In the case of conversations between the subjects, this
negotiation will lead to the provision of either direct or indirect forms of feedback, including
correction, comprehension checks, clarification requests, topic shifts, repetitions, and
recasts. Optimizing the interaction implies improving the quantity and quality of input,
production, and feedback.

b). Are there any beneficial of interaction on L2 fluency?

Oral fluency test is used to know the speaking English fluency and its improvement
over the time. Thats why it is done twice, one on the end of November 2015 and the other
one at the end of December 2015. These are the data taken from oral fluency test.

Table 2. Oral Fluency Test on November

Range of Appropriateness
Accuracy in Length and
language in the use of the Fluency in
the complexity
forms which language forms conveying
production of of the
No. Name the learner to convey the spoken
the language learners
can make meaning in language
forms production
use of specific context
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1 Ratna Yusi L.
2 Ananda Elok W.
3 Vicky Safitri
Note: 1. Poor, 2. Fair, 3. Good, 4. Excellent

The result of oral test on November is surprised, because even though they already
start the program two months before the test, but they seem havent enough improvement.
The best result is only shown on range of language forms which the learner can make use
of, it is caused the task are familiar. However, they cant optimize the familiar information
because they have problem in vocabulary and building sentence, so instead of evolving each
topic they tend to give short information. They are poor in accuracy, especially when they
asked to tell about past event, determining the correct regular and irregular verb on past tense
are still the problem. The performance on appropriateness in the use of the language forms to
convey meaning in specific context is also poor, they use when I was small instead of
When I was a kid very often, and they cant distinguish the different used of tall and
high. Short and simple sentences are used regularly, most of them used SVO structure. They
cant speak smoothly, because they are too afraid to make mistake.

Table 3. Oral Fluency Test on December

Range of Appropriateness
Accuracy in Length and
language in the use of the Fluency in
the complexity
forms which language forms conveying
production of of the
No. Name the learner to convey the spoken
the language learners
can make meaning in language
forms production
use of specific context
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1 Ratna Yusi L.
2 Ananda Elok W.
3 Vicky Safitri
Note: 1. Poor, 2. Fair, 3. Good, 4. Excellent

There is a little bit increasing result on December, this progress is caused by the
raising of confident. The subjects are not afraid to make mistake. This time they pick their
topic, and all of them tell about animal physiology. They seem excited telling about their
experiences on observing frog breeding. When modified interaction applied during
conversation, they can answer it. The interaction evolves as most of animal physiology terms
are in English, so they get used to it. The accuracy and appropriateness also has
improvement, they more aware in the using of past tense and simple present. Long sentences
and more various structures are used by the subjects, for example when they said I put a pair
of frogs in the jar, then wait for 12 hours and man frog give the sperm, they use adverb and
conjunction on the sentence. They can speak more fluent than last month, they still in doubt
building the sentence, but can perform English.

c. What are the positive effects of negotiation in language acquisition

Based on the explanation and example of negotiation above, it shows that positive
effects of negotiation of meaning and pushed output are said to have the following effects
on second language acquisition:
 It helps to promote communication.
It facilitates learning as it helps noticing a gap between received input and
the learners output
It enables learners to receive feedback through direct and indirect evidence
Recall of the relevant item will be enhanced.
It helps acquisition at least where vocabulary is concerned.
Clarification requests facilitate learners to produce output modifications
Pushing learners to produce more comprehensible output may have a long-term effect.
G. Conclusion

Interaction has an important role in second language acquisition. It can be proven by

the table on the previous section. Modified interaction is a strategy that is used by L2 learner
to clarify and acquire all the input. The quality of the input it influenced by the number of
modified interaction. The more information that is clarified, the better output will be
produced. The observed effect for modification of information structure may relate to the
increased amount of input and lengthened period of time on task provided through such
modification. It is not the modification of information structure that helps with the
comprehension or acquisition, rather it is the increased quantity of input and the longer
time on task that affords improvements in comprehension and acquisition.

The findings show that interaction can have positive effects on L2 development and
that the complex matter of individual differences needs to be considered carefully. The many
questions surrounding the study of interaction, development, and L2 learners suggest that
this area will continue to provide challenges as well as insights into our understanding
of the processes involved in SLA.

Another conclusion may be the fact that language is a sign of creativity and the ability
to conform form of language to appropriate setting is one realization of this creativity.
Through interaction and interpersonal relationships, creative language use plays an
important role as the learners engage in discussion to meet the mutual understanding.
If we are to claim that our language learning is meaningful, it should be embedded in
conversation.
 REFERENCE

Allwright, D. (1998). Contextual factors in classroom language learning: an overview.

Context in language learning and language understanding, 115-134.
Ariza, E. N., & Hancock, S. (2003). Second language acquisition theories as a framework for
creating distance learning courses. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 4(2).
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman.
Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition
(Vol. 25): John Benjamins Publishing.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. London: Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. M. (2013). Input, interaction, and the second language learner: Routledge.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2002). Frequency effects and second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(02), 249-260.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications: Addison-Wesley
Longman Ltd.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages are Learned 4th edition: Oxford
University Press.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and secondlanguage acquisition. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259-278.
Long, M. H. (1983). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259-278.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21(04), 557-587.
Pica, T. (1996). Second Language Learning through Interaction: Multiple Perspectives.
Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12(1), 1-22.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. Principle and
practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of HG Widdowson, 2(3), 125-144.
Wei, X. (2012). An Introduction to Conversational Interaction and Second Language
Acquisition. English Linguistics Research, 1(1), p111.
Zhang, S. (2009). The role of input, interaction and output in the development of oral fluency.
English Language Teaching, 2(4), p91.