1. The Linguistic Environment (Ch. 4)
Understanding SLA
Lourdes Ortega (2009)
Published by Routledge © 2009 Mark Sawyer

2. 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”

3. 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. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 4.13 Summary (1) 5 environmental ingredients of success
acculturated attitudes
comprehensible input
negotiated interaction
pushed output
capacity to attend to language code

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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.