Desarrollo fase 3: documentación

A psycholinguistic perspective on focus on form in TBLT draws on the related roles of input, interaction, noticing and output.

Motivated by the input hypothesis (Krashen, 1981, 1982, 1985) which posits that i+1 input or input that is slightly beyond the learner’s current level is necessary and sufficient for acquisition to occur, Long (1983, 1985a) argues that learners can obtain comprehensible input through negotiation of meaning (e.g., comprehension checks, clarification requests, confirmation checks) to resolve communication problems. This

forms the basic argument of Long’s (1983) early interaction hypothesis that extended the original input hypothesis (Mitchell & Myles, 2004). Long stresses the role of

interactional modifications or ‘interactive input’ (Ellis, 2008) in conversations to improve the comprehensibility of input rather than pre-modified input or ‘non-interactive input’ ( Ellis, 2008).

Research in response to the early interaction hypothesis attempted to show an indirect relationship between negotiation of meaning and acquisition via comprehension (Ellis, 2008). Ellis points out that comprehension involves semantic processing and thus “does not necessitate close attention to linguistic form” (p.251) and that the types of

comprehension processes needed for acquisition to take place are not specified. Many researchers (e.g., Faerch & Kasper, 1986) argue that how comprehension facilitates acquisition depends on learners noticing the input and making comparisons between this input and their interlanguage. Long (1996) later specified mechanisms whereby negotiation of meaning can assist acquisition: “communication trouble … can lead learners to recognize 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).

Research has then focussed on seeking tasks that are conducive to negotiation of meaning such as two-way required information gap tasks, and closed convergent tasks (Duff, 1986; Pica et al., 1993)(see Ellis, 2000, 2003; Mackey, 2012 for reviews). The role of feedback and the way learners modify their output in order to be more

comprehensible are also components of focus on form (e.g., Foster & Ohta, 2005; Gass & Mackey, 2007; Long, 1996; Mackey, 2012; Pica, 1994; Shehadeh, 2002, 2004). Long (1996) argues that negotiation of meaning leads to acquisition because “it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways” (pp.451-452).

The role of producing language in language acquisition was highlighted in the output hypothesis (Swain, 1985, 1995, 2005). This hypothesis challenged the view of

comprehensible input as “the only true cause of second language acquisition” (Krashen, 1984, p.61). While acknowledging comprehensible input is necessary, Swain (1985) argues that comprehensible input is not sufficient for language acquisition to occur.

Drawing on her research in French immersion programmes in Canada, she found that, despite exposure to abundant comprehensible input, the French immersion students in her study failed to use the target language accurately and appropriately for two reasons: students did not have sufficient opportunities to use the target language and they were not ‘pushed’ in their output because they were not pressurised to “be more

comprehensible than they already are” (p.249). In Swain’s (1985) words:

Conversational exchanges ... are not themselves the source of acquisition derived from comprehensible input. Rather they are the source of acquisition derived from

comprehensible output: output that extends the linguistic repertoire of the learner as he or she attempts to create precisely and appropriately the meaning desired (p.252, italics added).

Swain (2005) proposes three main functions of output. First, while producing output, learners are confronted with tensions in finding language resources to express what they want to communicate and so they may be directed to notice the ‘hole’ between

what they want to say and what they can say, leading them to recognize what they don’t know, or know partially.…. This may trigger cognitive processes which might generate linguistic knowledge that is new for learners, or which consolidate their existing knowledge.(Swain, 1995, p.126, original emphasis)

This noticing function echoes the noticing hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990, 1994, 2001), which argues that noticing, or ‘conscious attention’ is crucial in L2 learning. Second, output has the hypothesis testing function in that “output may sometimes be, from the learners’ perspective, a “trial run” reflecting their hypothesis of how to say (or to write) their intent” (Swain, 2005, p.476). Third, the metalinguistic/reflective function claims that “using language to reflect on language produced by others or the self, mediates second language learning” (Swain, 2005, p.478). This third function of output is related to socio- cultural theory that will be elaborated later.

Above all, underlying the functions of output is the role of consciousness in acquisition. While producing output, learners need to process language syntactically rather than semantically (Ellis, 2008; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Therefore, output engages learners in deeper language processes than input (Gass, 1997; Skehan, 1998; Swain, 2000).

Producing output also enhances automatisation and fluency (de Bot, 1996; Skehan, 1998; Swain, 1995), allows learners to bring in their personal voices (Skehan, 1998; Ellis, 2008), and provides ‘auto input’, input from one’s own production (Ellis, 2008).

Empirical research supports the claims in the output hypothesis by showing how opportunities to produce language lead to acquisition (de la Fuente, 2002; Ellis & He, 1999; Izumi, 2003; Izumi & Bigelow, 2000; Izumi, Bigelow, Fujiwara, & Fearnow, 1999; Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993). Research has also focussed on the role of feedback (see Mackey, 2007, 2012 for recent reviews), again providing evidence in support of the output hypothesis. Drawing on the roles of input, interaction, and output, the interaction hypothesis now provides richer insights into how negotiation can help language learning through both positive and negative evidence (Ellis, 2008, p.255). The interaction hypothesis has been recently referred to as ‘the interaction approach’ (Gass & Mackey, 2007; Mackey, 2012; Mackey, Abbuhl, & Gass, 2012) which argues that the question is now not whether interaction influences learning, but rather how it affords opportunities for learning (Mackey, 2012).

Other research studies by Swain and her colleagues have focussed on output as a cognitive process that mediates learning. One focus of this research is language-related episodes (LREs) that arise during student collaborative work and evidence of learning (e.g., Brooks & Swain, 2009; Donato, 1994; Storch, 2002a, 2002b; Swain, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 2001). This body of research has investigated tasks that encourage students to discuss and resolve LREs during collaborative talk, and in so doing to increase awareness of language forms, leading to internalisation of these forms or consolidation of existing language knowledge (Swain & Lapkin, 1995)(also see Chapter 3). As Skehan (2007b) points out, “the focus, in this case, is psycholinguistics, and how form is brought into focus, but the means connect with socio-cultural theory” (p.295). A socio-cultural perspective on focus on form is addressed next.