Rivalidad entre Competidores Existentes

The input-interaction-output hypotheses are fundamental concepts in the field of Second Language Acquisition. In view of abundant empirical studies and theoretical advancement, Gass and Mackey (2014) claim that the Interaction Hypothesis has advanced to the interaction approach, which subordinates some aspects of the Input Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis, similar to Long’s claim (1996).

The interaction approach is also frequently referred to as input, interaction, output model (Block, 2003) and interaction theory (Carroll, 1999). It hypothesizes that language

17

learning is realised through learners’ exposure to language, production of language and feedback received on production. According to Gass (2003), the starting point of the interaction research is “the assumption that language learning is stimulated by communicative pressure and examines the relationship between communication and acquisition and the mechanisms (e.g., noticing, attention) that mediate between them” (p. 224).

One sociocultural notion underpinning the interaction approach is Vygotsky’s (1978, p. 86) notion of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which is defined as

“the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers”.

Learning occurs with the shift from the potential development level to the actual developmental level, when learners overcome the problems that they cannot solve independently, but through interaction with or scaffolding from the people around them. In this way, it not only strengthens the importance of interaction in language learning, but also lays the foundation for the hypothesis of comprehensible input ‘i+1’ which is discussed below. Although the ZPD was originally applied to the education of children, it is applicable to or more suitable for adults’ education suggested by later research (Fani & Ghaemi, 2011).

2.2.1 Comprehensible Input

According to Krashen (1985), the fundamental principle in Second Language Acquisition is a combination of the Input Hypothesis and Affective Filter Hypothesis. It posits that learners can acquire a second language provided that they are exposed to comprehensible input and that they are motivated and confident to absorb the input. Krashen (1985) explains comprehensible input in terms of ‘i+1’ which is slightly beyond ‘i’, the current level of language competence. Comprehensible input does not necessarily mean simplified input although simplification is one way of conveying comprehensible messages. Other options include elaboration (Gass & Mackey, 2014) and providing extra-linguistic context to facilitate understanding messages. It is believed that a large amount of frequent and repeated exposure to this ‘i+1’ language leads to acquisition.

Krashen (1985) further argues that comprehensible input is necessary, but not sufficient for language acquisition. The ‘affective filter’ serves as a pre-condition to determine to what extent learners can fully utilize the comprehensible input. For instance, when learners lack motivation, self-confidence and are full of anxiety, they are less likely to internalise the language although they receive the comprehensible language input. Learners tend to be more anxious if they perceive that their weakness can be revealed in the acquisition. The Affective Filter is especially prominent after puberty, and adults tend to have higher affective filters than children. This implies that adult language acquisition deserves more attention to the affective aspects of the language learners such as attitudes, motivation and confidence.

As for Deaf learners, they lack language exposure to as well as comprehensible input of spoken languages through listening. It is instrumental to consider other remedial means

18

for increasing comprehensible input besides reading. Previous projects such as the Italian-funded VISEL project (DeMonte, Groves, & Nuccetelli, 2011) and the Deaf Port Project (Makosch, 2011), suggest transferring listening as well as speaking of spoken languages for Deaf learners to an online learning environment or online social communication. This can serve as a rationale of adopting e-learning and online communication for Deaf learners’ English literacy attainment. Meanwhile, due to long- term oppression and isolation, Deaf adult learners are more likely to experience higher affective filters in language acquisition with contrast to hearing adults. This should also be addressed in Deaf learners’ language acquisition process.

2.2.2 Interaction

Evidence shows that comprehensible input is insufficient for learning to take place, especially for adult learners with nativelike proficiency as the goal (Long, 1996). In SLA, interaction refers to the conversations that learners engage in as part of the process of language acquisition. Long (1996) suggests that negotiation for meaning, and particularly negotiation leading to interactional adjustments from more competent interlocutors, supports acquisition, since it links input, internalisation of knowledge, selective attention and output in a synergised and productive way.

In the negotiation process, learners receive information about both the correctness and the incorrectness of their utterances (Gass & Mackey, 2014). The latter information is referred to as negative evidence in the interaction approach, which learners receive through interactional feedback. The interactional feedback can take the forms of both overt correction and negotiation.

Gass (1997) illustrates the process that negative evidence leads to interaction for learning. Interpreting negative evidence is to alert learners to errors in their speech. After noticing the errors, learners start determining what the problems were, how to modify existing linguistic knowledge and what the correct form should look like. Then learners may search for further input to confirm or discard their hypothesized correct form or produce the new form to test its correctness.

Gass and Mackey (2014) summarize a wide array of issues on the agenda of interaction research, including grammatical aspects and interaction, individual differences and interaction, and the most beneficial forms of interaction for learners in specific settings. They further identify that there is a trend to acknowledge the role of social context for interaction. For instance, as Dornyei (2009) proposes, the relationship between learners can affect learners’ willingness to communicate. Dornyei (2009) believes that learners cannot be meaningfully separated from the social environment in which they operate language learning because they are social human beings. The social context is a higher order combination to understand and influence each individual difference factor and language acquisition. Social contextual influences may ultimately impact learners’ opportunities to interact for learning.

Mackey (1999) examines the effect of different types of conversational interaction on SLA, including active participation in interaction for negotiation for meaning, and watching interaction or taking part in interaction with no negotiation. She confirms that active participation exerts a positive impact on language acquisition, whereas the interaction with no active participation is not detrimental but with more limited effect on language development. In general, it is agreed that participation in interaction with

19

opportunities for negotiation for meaning can yield comprehensible input, push output (Swain, 1995) and have a facilitative effect on SLA. To this effect, the importance of a participatory approach for an enabling learning environment to encourage meaningful interaction for language acquisition is elaborated in Section 2.3.

Considering the long history of oppressing views towards the Deaf community in India (see Section 2.1.1), it is likely that it might be challenging to keep Deaf learners motivated and confident for active participation in conversational interaction. Deaf learners may also hold a reserved position depending on the conversational partners. At the same time, Deaf learners’ way of taking part in the interaction differs from their hearing peers. They are more likely to engage in the conversational interaction through using L1 (ISL) or through online conversation in L1/L2.

2.2.3 Output

Examining the evidence of non-native performance of students in immersion programmes in Canada, Swain (1984) concludes that comprehensible input alone is not sufficient for learners to reach nativelike proficiency, and what is lacking is sufficient opportunities of language use. Swain (1995) therefore puts forward the Output Hypothesis. It posits that producing the target language is likely to prompt learners to realise some of their linguistic problems, and to pay attention to some aspects they need to improve in L2. Different from the Interaction Hypothesis, learners notice the gaps in their own knowledge of L2 by producing the target language even without feedback from conversational partners. On occasions, learners are pushed to modify their output by responding to clarification requests and confirmation checks (Pica, Holliday, Lewis, & Morgenthaler, 1989).

In this sense, the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1995) acknowledges that learners are able to consciously monitor their production. This echoes the Monitor Hypothesis described by Krashen (1985). The Monitor Hypothesis explicates the ways acquisition and learning are used in production, and argues that conscious knowledge as an editor, or Monitor, corrects the output of the acquired system before or after language production. Krashen (1985) later rejects the Monitor Hypothesis as it is difficult to meet both the conditions set for using the Monitor: learners must be conscious of the correctness and the rule. However, the Output Hypothesis as described by Swain (1995) counters Krashen’s rejection of the Monitor Hypothesis and provides new evidence of learners’ capability in constantly monitoring their language production.

The Output Hypothesis (Swain,1995) emphasizes the importance of having enough opportunities for language production. Language output enables learners to move from semantic comprehension to syntactic processing of language which is needed for production. Production allows learners to identify knowledge gaps and refine their language. To be more specific, Gass and Mackey (2014) recap three functions of output: pushing for more target-like output, testing hypotheses about the target language and promoting automaticity in L2 use.

This implies that it is an imperative to create more output opportunities for learners to fully acquire a language. For Deaf learners, similar to the situation of comprehensible input, there is a need for transfer of the production to online communication context in L2 to increase the opportunities for output. It is of necessity to explore other means maximizing the opportunities of use of L2 for Deaf learners.

20

Nevertheless, it is necessary to emphasise that output is not the only way leading to language learning. It has been agreed for some time that a synergy of comprehensible input, interaction and output as the interaction approach is the key to second language acquisition. Long (1996) explains the orchestra of these three elements,

“Negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS (native speakers) or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways.” (pp. 451–452)

The research with reference to the Input-Interaction-Output Hypotheses in Deaf literacy development is very limited. The current study attempts to fill the gap by looking into how an e-learning environment in favour of comprehensible input, interaction and output is established for Deaf young adult learners’ literacy development in view of their special educational needs.