Lecture Review | Interaction Hypothethis？Motivation Theory？Second Language Acquisition？For more information, please click here!
Introduction
On June 11th, 2019, from 14:00 to 16:00, the second lecture of the Second Language Acquisition Theory Series, which was titled Research into SLA from Interactionists and Motivation Perspectives was successfully held under the sponsorship of the Center for Cognition Science of Language, BLCU. This lecture is still delivered by Professor Ke Chuanren from the University of Iowa. Professor Ke introduced the interaction hypothesis and motivation theory from three aspects: historical evolution, core content and the enlightenment of theory to teaching. With the vivid metaphors and examples, the theory became lively and interesting, and everyone benefited a lot.
Lecture content
First, Professor Ke introduced us to the historical background of the "interaction hypothesis." “There is a strong correlation between interaction and learning in the second language acquisition field, which is generally accepted.” (Gass & Mackey, 2007) As early as the 1970s, researchers discovered that when native speakers and learners interacted with each other, they would adjust their discourse to make it easier for learners to understand their words, just as when adults communicate with children. Researchers believe that verbal adjustments such as repetition and syntactic simplification can make language input easier to understand, thus facilitating the learner's acquisition process.
While Krashen’s input hypothesis argues that understandable input is the driving force behind language acquisition. If the learner is exposed to this type of input and has "low emotion filtering" at the same time, the acquisition of the second language will occur automatically (subconsciously). Any mechanism that helps make the input easy to understand is valuable, for example, to simplify the grammar of writing or speaking.
By the end of the 1970s, researchers began to explain the learning process by examining the relationship between language and communication. Hatch (1978) believes that interaction is the place where second language learners really learn, and learners learn the syntactic structure in verbal communication.
Based on the research of Krashen and Hatch et al., Long (1980, 1981) elaborated his initial interaction hypothesis. Long believes that the development of understandable input and second language stems from the conversation adjustments of native speakers and learners in solving communication difficulties, though these adjustments are not the only means of achieving understandable input.
Swain's (1985) output hypothesis believes that output plays a crucial role in the development of the second language. He believes that second language learners need to produce an utterance similar to the understandable input “i+1”, that is the understandable output. Teachers should give learners the opportunity to practice so that the output of the language is automated.
Research in the early 1990s pointed out that only conscious awareness of the characteristics of the input can successfully be entered. Schmidt's (1990) Noticing Hypothesis suggests that subconscious language learning is impossible, and that attention is the necessary and sufficient condition for translating input into internalization. VanPatten (1989) pointed out that second language learners usually practice a selective attention. The significant and meaningful part of the input usually attracts their attention. Features lacking significant or communicative value may be ignored. Therefore, researchers believe that second language learners may benefit from focusing on the formal characteristics of the target language. This theory has allowed the interaction hypothesis to enter a more advanced version.
Long (1996) amended the interaction hypothesis: “The contribution of the environment to acquisition is regulated by selective attention and the ability of learners to develop a second language. These resources are most effectively integrated in the process of meaning negotiation. Negative feedback obtained during the negotiation process or elsewhere may contribute to the development of a second language, at least in terms of vocabulary, morphology and special syntax."
Then, Professor Ke summarized the core components of the interaction hypothesis, including interactive adjustment input; learner's selective attention to the normative features of his/her interlanguage and second language; opportunity for output and opportunity to accept feedback.
Next Professor Ke explained the second language acquisition teaching in terms of interaction hypothesis and introduced the form-oriented teaching method. He mainly elaborated focuson-form (FonF) and focus-form (FonFs).
Finally, Professor Ke summarized the limitations of the interaction hypothesis (input-interaction-output model (IIO)). He pointed out that the acquisition in the IIO model is seen as a simple information processing, without considering the learner's understanding of the context of situation. The IIO model ignores the importance of the environment and how learners live and experience language communication, thereby building identity, unity, support and trust. In addition, there is no consensus that how much of the presence of specific forms of learner behavior can suggest that acquisition will occur. The seemingly successful meaning negotiation may be false. Few people know whether interaction leads to permanent reorganization of interlanguage and whether it will promote the development of a second language in addition to vocabulary and grammar.
Knowledge extension
The historical background of motivation theory
The period of psychosociality (1959-1990): The motivational view of second language acquisition in this period emphasizes the interactional function between the social background of an individual and the society, and it is mainly based on the research of Robert Gartner and his colleagues. Gartner developed during this period a social education model that includes two motivational orientations: a comprehensive orientation and a tool orientation.
Cognitive Situational Period (1990s): This period uses the study of cognitive theory in educational psychology, focusing on how the psychological processes of learners influence their motivation. Cognitive psychologists believe that how a person thinks about his or her abilities, possibilities, potentials, limitations, and past performance has a major impact on motivation.
Process-oriented period (turn of the century): (Dornyei, 2009) thinks: 1) The ideal L2 self refers to a person's vision of the future self - if the person we want to become can speak L2, the ideal L2 self is a powerful motivation to learn a specific language because we want to reduce the disparity between our real self and ideal self; 2) ought-to L2 self cares about the externally imposed responsibilities and obligations; 3) L2 learning experience is relevant to a person's motivation, namely, it is inspired by experiences of previous and current language learning environment.
Social dynamics period (current): Focus on dynamic systems and contextual interactions.
Education enlightenments
1. Language teachers can become the main driving force for students to learn new languages. By training teachers to carry out more motivational teaching, students' motivations can be directly improved.
2. Motivational strategies: to create basic incentives; appropriate teacher behavior and good student relationships; a pleasant and supportive classroom atmosphere; a cohesive group of learners with appropriate group norms.
3. Maintenance and protection motivation: to set “recent sub-goals” to improve the quality of learning experience, enhance learners' self-confidence, create learner autonomy, and promote self-motivation learning strategies through self-regulation.
4. Students’ motivation: Unsatisfied with the score and homework? The teacher is boring, unorganized or unprepared? Don't like the theme? Inferior textbooks? Teacher –centered classroom and teachers are unapproachable?
5. Relationship between teacher motivation and student motivation: If a teacher does not trust his work and uninterested in the knowledge he is trying to convey, the student can feel it and come to a completely reasonable conclusion that the particular topic itself is not worth mastering.
6. Teachers' expectations and beliefs about students' learning ability: Teachers' expectations of students will affect the way he/she approaches the students verbally and emotionally, which will further affect the students' academic performance and results.
7, Fixed mindset and growth of mentality (Carol Dweck, 2007): it is the continuous effort that makes the ability bear fruit.
Wise praise: "Wow, this score is really good. You must be very smart."
Process praise: "Wow, this score is really good. You must have worked hard."
