View Content #18045

by Julie Sykes, CASLS Director

Regardless of one's theoretical perspective on second language acquisition (SLA), interaction is a central component of learning a new language. Interaction is one of the most prominent features of numerous approaches to SLA and has been conceptualized in a variety of ways within a complex, multifaceted theoretical debate (see Lafford, 2007).

The interaction hypothesis (Gass, 1997; Long, 1983) posits that interaction is crucial for producing scenarios in which negotiation for meaning (NfM) can occur. As a learner interprets input and produces relevant output, instances of miscommunication can occur which require NfM, and, as a result, can lead the learner to notice gaps leading to the miscommunication. Designing tasks to facilitate frequent and meaningful NfM is critical to facilitating meaningful interaction.

Socially informed accounts, such as sociocultural theory and language socialization view interaction as a complex social phenomenon and posit that learning and internalization occur beyond instances of miscommunication. Drawing on Halliday (1978), interaction from this perspective includes ideational meaning (i.e., basic information being exchanged), interpersonal meaning (i.e., pragmatics of the interaction), and textual meaning (i.e., the context of the interaction). Attention to all three types of meaning is viewed as essential for the language classroom.

From Theory to Practice

Despite differences in perspectives, most agree a key element in successful learning is the application of what is being learned in a variety of contexts and through multiple interactional opportunities. Drawing on research from a variety of theoretical perspectives, three guiding principles inform the facilitation of meaningful interaction in the classroom.

1. Tasks require real communication through the sharing of unknown information or completion of a product through collaboration. This could include, for example, sharing schedules to find a common time (assuming the learners do not already know each other's schedules) or a jigsaw task where learners read different parts of an article and then used the distributed information to solve a problem.
2. A task should engage learners in contexts and tasks relevant to their own experiences. Caution should be taken to avoid placing learners in scenarios they are unlikely to encounter. Tasks should focus on communication in meaningful contexts structured around ways language is actually used. Giving learners choices can be one way to provide relevant contextual options.
3. Interactional success should be measured not only on task completion, but on success across ideational, interpersonal, and textual dimensions as well. When evaluating learning outcomes, rubrics can include structure, content, strategic language use, pragmatic behaviors, and other elements relevant to meaningful communication. A comprehensive view of interaction adds depth and meaning to interactions in and out of the classroom.

References

Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

Lafford, B. (2007). Second Language Acquisition Reconceptualized? The Impact of Firth and Wagner 1997. Modern Language Journal Focus Issue, 91, 735-756.

Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.