University of Münster, Germany
Authentic Interactions and Language Learning –
Long’s original Interaction Hypothesis (1980) was intensely criticised, which then led to an updated version (Long 1996). Critics saw a marked improvement:
The updated version of the IH, with its emphasis on the contributions of negative feedback and modified output as well as comprehensible input and its recognition that interaction works by connecting input, internal capacities and output via selective attention, is obvi- ously a major advance on the early version. (Ellis 1999: 14)
There can be no doubt that, especially in the wake of the discussions on the impor- tance of output and the role of negotiation of meaning, the Interaction Hypothesis gained considerable weight. That is not to say, however, that the research problems in connection with the Interaction Hypothesis have been solved. Basic questions still remain that have not yet been satisfactorily answered. The most important issue remains: How does comprehension turn into acquisition? Incidentally, one of the many ‘missing links’ when it comes to research issues in language pedagogy (cf. inter alia Oxford 1990; Wright/Bolitho 1993). Some of the tentative answers to explain the relationship between comprehension and acquisition and thus “close the gap” will be addressed in the first part of this paper.
The second part will discuss some other weaknesses of the Interaction Hy- pothesis. The quality and nature of conversational interactions in learner-learner discourses varies greatly. However, so far no detailed attempt has been made to distinguish between various types of conversational interaction within the Interac- tion Hypothesis, and elaborate on their impact on learning processes. It has to be assumed, for example, that certain types of interaction have a differential effect on language-learning processes. This issue will be taken up in the last part.
2. How does comprehension or interaction turn into acquisition?
Swain and Lapkin (1998: 320) quite pertinently ask the question: “What are the mechanisms by which comprehensible input is converted into L2 knowledge and use?”. The answers are as manifold as they are vague. Long himself, as indicated above, claims that the learners’ “selective attention” and negotiation of meaning activate attentional resources which lead to gap-noticing. In combination with negative feedback, it sets the scene for acquisition (Long 1996: 414). Swain and Lapkin’s answer to the puzzle is that language as a cognitive or a mediational tool brings about the conversion.
Although comprehension processes were focused upon in the early days, the emphasis soon shifted to linguistic processing in general. If learners engage in col- laborative dialogue and outperform their competence, then “language is learned as
it is used” (Swain 1997: 17). Rod Ellis (1994: 365) claims that “the way language is learnt is a reflection of the way it is used”. In similar vein, David Little (1995: 176) assumes that “language learning and language use engage the same underlying mechanisms”. Although this hypothesis has an immediate and plausible appeal, as yet there has been no attempt to explain these mechanisms. Small wonder, then, that Mitchell and Myles (1998: 133) claim that “stronger theoretical models clarifying the precise nature of the supposed link between interaction and acquisi- tion” are needed.
If it is accepted that in communicative interactions and acquisition the same underlying mechanisms are applied, then ideally we would have to resort to explicit models both of interactive linguistic processing and of acquisition in order to be able to define those features they have in common. One has to admit, however, that the research communities have not yet reached consensus with regard to either type of model, but there are tentative ideas about how modelling processes could explain the relationship between interaction and acquisition.
The crucial question is: What happens when linguistic data are processed?
The hint of an answer might be found in the models of linguistic processing as proposed by Dieter Wolff. The point is that when processing linguistic data, concept-driven processes and data-driven processes (or top-down and bottom- up processes) interact when working out a cognitive representation of linguistic utterances. This type of interaction between stored concepts or schemata (old information), on the one hand, and new data or incoming linguistic stimuli, on the other, seems also to be happening in acquisition. The main difference would be that the new cognitive representation in the acquisition process would lead to a more permanent restructuring of schemata (or linguistic knowledge), and thus to learning (cf. Wolff 1986). Figure 1 was given a more complex representation in Wolff (cf. 2002: 182, 294).
Figure 1: Authentic interactions and language learning
Linguistic knowledge declarative procedural
concept-driven process
data-driven process
linguistic stimuli contextual stimuli
Cognitive representation
of linguistic utterance World knowledge
declarative procedural
Schemata
Stimuli
processing space
3. The need for an elaboration of the Interaction Hypothesis – some issues
3.1 Reflective processes
Little keeps reminding us that communicative interaction as such will not suffice in institutional contexts. Without learners engaging in “metalinguistic and meta- cognitive processes of analysis and reflection” (Little 1996: 209), it is likely that the linguistic development of learners will fossilize at some stage. These reflective processes should preferably include all aspects of the teaching-learning undertak- ing. In other words, they will not only be directed towards formal aspects of the target language, but also aim at the evaluation of overall organizational processes, at the type of activities undertaken and, last but not least, at the learning results.
Reflection leads to awareness-raising, which can be said to act as a “fermentation ingredient” for the learning process. At the same time, they introduce an element of authenticity into the classroom procedures.
3.2 Authenticity of interactions
Authenticity is said to be another prerequisite or basic requirement for the valid- ity of the Interaction Hypothesis. However, given the complexity of the notion of authenticity in the foreign-language classroom, a brief clarification of what
is to be understood by it in this context seems to be called for: communicative interactions are authentic if the learners are allowed ‘to speak as themselves’, that is, if they are not engaged in ‘do-as-if activities’ whose defining feature is ‘a sus- pension of disbelief ’. A more elaborate definition can be found in the writings of Leo van Lier (1996: 13): “An action is authentic when it realizes a free choice and is an expression of what a person genuinely feels and believes. An authentic action is intrinsically motivated”. It is this latter definition that enables learners to
“authenticate” any activity, even form-focused exercises which they might have chosen with the explicit intention of supporting their learning process.
3.3 The density of negotiation of meaning and deficient input
The Interaction Hypothesis makes sense for institutional settings if classroom procedures are not merely characterised by teacher-learner interactions, but if they are dominated by learner-learner interactions. This implies that classroom activities are by and large characterised by group and pair work. However, there are basically two types of frequently voiced counter-argument to a predominance of pair and group work, that is, learner-learner interactions in classrooms. First, several studies have come to the conclusion that the density or frequency of mean- ing negotiation and negotiations of forms in foreign-language classrooms is fairly disappointing (cf. Pica/Doughty 1985; Foster 1998). Van Branden, for example, observed more occurrences of negotiation of meaning –and thus acquisition- facilitating processes– in teacher-fronted interactions than in learner-learner interactions (1997: 628).
Secondly, it is claimed that the meaning-focus in the interactions prevents learners, for example, from negotiating inflectional morphology (cf. Sato 1986;
Ellis 1999: 15). Moreover, Prabhu (1987: 81), in his seminal work on Second Lan- guage Pedagogy, claims that “sustained interaction between learners is likely to provide less opportunity for system-revision”. And Guy Aston, echoing Brumfit (1984), evokes the danger of early fossilization “as learners will acquire from each other’s interlanguage” (1986: 131). As the number of the above references makes obvious, it seems to be a widespread conviction in the research commu- nity that the verbal interactions of learners are not linguistically rich enough to support their linguistic development adequately. However, the data on which the critical assessments of learner-learner interactions are based seem to be suf- fering from one and the same basic flaw. More often than not, they derive from conventional mainstream classrooms that can be said to be by and large teacher- directed and which have not managed to engage learners in their own learn- ing. These classrooms rarely involve them in reflective processes concerning the
overall learning-teaching approach, and many activities rely on a ‘suspension of disbelief ’. In short, these studies are conducted in classrooms in which authentic communicative interactions in the sense outlined above are not the main consti- tutive feature of the activities.