The Linguistic Environment (Ch. 4) Understanding SLA Lourdes Ortega (2009) www.routledge.com/cw/ortega Published by Routledge © 2009 Mark Sawyer

4.1 Wes: I’m never learning, I’m only just listen then talk Japanese semi-immigrant to Hawaii Communicatively successful Grammatically unsuccessful + attitudes, + input are not enough Sensitivity to form is missing ingredient Birth of Schmidt’s “Noticing Hypothesis”

4.2 Acculturation as a predictive explanation for L2 success? Costa Rican immigrant Alberto failed to move beyond basic pidginized English Schumann’s explanation: Social distance Psychological distance Pidginization hypothesis/Acculturation model Schumann later moved in cognitive directions

4.3 Input for comprehension & for learning (1) Krashen: Comprehensible input is necessary and sufficient for SLA Problems for deterministic idea that comprehension  acquisition Conceptual Empirical

4.3 Input for comprehension & for learning (2) Krashen’s Monitor Model/Input hypothesis 5 interlocking hypotheses Acquisition/Learning Monitor Natural Order Input Affective Filter

4.4 Interaction & negotation for meaning (NOM) Interaction hypothesis (Michael Long) Krashen was basically right, but… How does input become comprehensible? Answer: Interactional modifications after trouble, which serve to negotiate for meaning, e.g. clarification requests confirmation checks comprehension checks

4.5 Output & syntactic processing during production Merrill Swain (1985): (Pushed) (Comprehensible) Output Hypothesis Unlike comprehension, production requires full syntactic processing Cognitive & social & linguistic demands can push output to higher levels These efforts destabilize IL (InterLanguage)

4.6 Noticing and attention as moderators of affordances in the environment Attention  Noticing (sometimes) (Subjective experience of something new) Noticing  Learning (to some extent) Analysis  (More) Understanding

4.7 Two generations of interaction studies Gen 1(1980s+) How NOM actually happens What factors maximize NOM How NOM improves comprehension Gen 2 (1994 ~) Benefits of NOM on particular language Interacting effects of NOM & task design

4.8 The empirical link between interaction & acquisition Gen 2 features Pre- and post-tests Targeting of particular forms Inclusion of measure of noticing (sometimes) Meta-analysis: strong effects of NOM Morphosyntactic effects of take time

4.9 Output modification Output promotes… noticing of gaps & holes metalinguistic awareness hypothesis testing Pushed output groups produced more language & more complete info Self-initiated output modification: frequent

4.10 Learner-initiated negotiation of form Language-Related Episodes (Swain) Learner-Initiated Focus on Form (Ellis+) …engage meta-reflection & self-regulation processes, leading to learning L1 meta-language showed good results

4.11 Negative feedback (NF) during meaning & form negotiation NF better term than error correction, corrective feedback, negative evidence Includes, in order of explicitness (?)… explicit corrections recasts elicitations clarification requests

NF 2 Frequency very variable, but… Low in non-instructional settings Medium in laboratory (25-50%) High in classrooms (48-90%) Types: no consensus, but need to include… explicitness informativeness demand Effectiveness: better than ignoring errors

4.12 The limits of the linguistic environment NOM is not the panacea for SLA Engagement, risk-taking with less NOM NOM can be discouraging, annoying. Not all NOM is really NOM (e.g. continuer) Significance of NOM may be deceiving. Many reasons for low level of NOM. Power & prejudice influence NOM. L2ers may take “equitable responsibility” approach

4.13 Summary (1) 5 environmental ingredients of success acculturated attitudes comprehensible input negotiated interaction pushed output capacity to attend to language code

4.13 Summary (2) Positive attitudes, comprehensible input are not enough Grammar acquisition needs FonF. Learning can be facilitated by… NoM Output modifications NoF Negative feedback

4.13 Summary (3) LREs/PFonF may help learning. Negative feedback (NF) is useful. Effect of NF is moderated by… degree of explicitness instructional orientation towards L2

4.13 Summary (4) Value of comprehension vs. production is still poorly understood. Grammar is different, less incidental Requires more interest, attention, effort. May require more time to simmer. Can act as gatekeeper to other areas of L2 Effect of linguistic environment depends on learner’s perceptions and actions.