INPUT, INTERACTION, AND SECOND LANGUAGE PRODUCTION, Susan M. Gass (Michigan State University) and Evangeline Marlos Valonis (University of Akron).

 

1. INTRODUCTION:

 

The purpose of this paper is to carry out  a critical analysis in which I am going to present a descriptive analysis of the main features of the article entitled: ‘Input, Interaction, and Second Language Production’, written by Susan M. Gass and Evangeline Marlos Varonis in English language and  published in the journal English for Specific Purposes.

 

2. ANALYSIS OF THE ARTICLE:

 

2.1. Marked objective:

 

The purpose of this paper is “to see if and in what ways it is possible to determine a direct relationship between input, particularly interactional input, and subsequent language production” through an experiment to discuss the following hypotheses: a) modified input yields better NNS comprehension than unmodified input, b) Interaction yields better NNS comprehension, c) interaction yields better NS comprehension, d) prior interaction yields better L2 production, e) prior input modification yields better L2 production, f) real-word expectations affect comprehension.

 

2.2. Analysis of the article:

 

         This paper  follows the macrostructure which is used by most of the research articles which carry out an experimental method, that is: title, abstract, introduction, methodology (subject, procedure and design), results, discussion, conclusion and references.

 

 

TITLE:         

The title ‘Input, Interaction, and Second Language production’ as we can see is written in capital letters, it is formed by six words linked by commas and by the conjunction ‘and’. So, we can say that the authors by means of a series  of words in a very simple and short way try to attract the attention of those readers interested in input, interaction, and second language production, that is,  addressed to a specific audience who would guess its content by just reading it. However, it is not clear what kind of relationship there is between them. This fact can be also considered as a device employed by the authors to attract the reader’s attention and to encourage him or her to read their article to discover their relationship. The title is followed by the name of the authors; Susan M. Gass and Evangeline Marlos Varonis  and the university where they are teachers.

 

ABSTRACT:

After this, we have the abstract, that is, a short text of ten  and a half lines considered as a second device  to call the attention of the readers without giving the extra explanation that would be found later in the introduction and in the rest of the article. The first line of the abstract begins with a generalisation as it is ‘ the role of conversational interaction in the development of a second language has been central in the recent second language acquisition literature’. (The) Next sentence narrow the focus by  stating that ‘while a great deal is now known about the way in which NNS speakers interact with NS and other  NNS, little is known about the lasting effects of these interactions on a NNS’s linguistics development’. So, here, we can talk about a gap because there are just a few studies about that. Finally,  what the article investigates is indicated: ‘the relationship among input, interaction and second language production is going to be investigated” by the  ‘data from native-nonnative speaker interactions in a direction-giving task modified input and interaction affect task performance’ and arriving at the conclusion that ‘only interaction has an effect on subsequent task performance’.

There are several verbal tenses used within the abstract, for example in the first one ‘has been’ (present perfect) in order to indicate that conversational interactions in the development of a second language  has been central in the recent second language acquisition literature and still is relevant. In the second one, the verb ‘is known’(passive voice: present) appears twice to indicate  that it is not only the authors who know little about the topic but lack of knowledge is general. In the rest of sentences ‘investigates, shows, has’ (present simple) describe the current state of affairs.

INTRODUCTION:

The authors continue with a lengthy  introduction (a development of the abstract and a justification of the interaction’s importance in teaching second foreign languages from recent studies) which I am going to analyse according to Swales’ CARS. This length is possibly due to the use of observed tasks to exemplify what some authors have done to understand which input is more beneficial in  second language production. They refer to interaction among NS and NNS speakers and among NNS speakers.

We can see that its first sentence is the same as the abstract’s first sentence, that is, a generalisation, and soon, in the fourth line we reach the purpose of the article.  Before starting with the two points of Conversation in native-nonnative discourse and Conversation in nonnative-nonnative discourse, it is said  that the role of conversation interactions in the development of a second languages has been central in recent second language acquisition literature and, has been addressed from a variety of perspectives. However, it has been difficult to determine the role of input and interaction in terms of actual language development, naming , in this way, Schachter (1986) who argued  for the importance of showing the effect of NS input on the language learning process.

When referring to conversation in native-nonnative discourse and Conversation in nonnative-nonnative discourse several authors are quoted  to name their related studies contributing with some examples to explain advantages and disadvantages of these kinds of discourse. That is to say, some authors think that the input acquired in interactions for a second language from NS is more beneficial than the input acquired from interaction between  NNS  and the opposite, however, others say that the wrong input from NNS  is also beneficial for learning.

            Finally, (the) last move we find in the introduction is that  in which the authors occupy the niche saying what they are going to analyse in their article, that is, their attempt to further investigate the relationship among input interaction and second language production. They, even, specify the hypotheses discussed:

1. modified input yields better NNS comprehension than unmodified input,
2. interaction yields better NNS comprehension,
3. interaction yields better NS comprehension,
4. prior interaction yields better L2 production,
5. prior input modification yields better L2 production and,
6. real-word expectations affect comprehension.

The writers over the introduction have used the past tense (eg. held, did not suggest, made, etc.) for the literary review they have developed. However, when they occupy the niche they start using the present tense (eg. have considered, examine, attempt ,etc.).

Finally, we can say that this article has followed the three logical moves normally established in articles of research. Although there is no terminology defined, all the abbreviations used are explained.

 

METHODOLOGY:

After a fast overview of some studies done about the advantages and disadvantages about the two kind of discourse a descriptive study is started which is explained step by step, which was done in order to carry on such investigation.

The method of study employed to do their research is broken down in: subjects, procedures and design.

Such experiment was done  at a large U.S. university involving  16 students pairing them as native-nonnative who had to perform two tasks, on one hand,  to describe to a partner where to place 20 objects on a board and, on the other, place the objects on an identical blackboard following the instructions  given.  In every case the native speaker first read from a script provided by the researchers (Trial 1). After this description, a second board, was given to the nonnative to describe (Trial2). Prior to the start of data collection, a native-native pair and a native-nonnative pair performed the first task described above, using the board for trial 1.  In neither case was interaction allowed.  None of these four individuals participated in the actual study.  The descriptions were recorded and then transcribed.  The transcripts of both pairs were used as the script for trial 1.  The script taken from the description of one native speaker to the other native speaker was designated unmodified input; the script taken from the description of the native speaker to the nonnative speaker was designated modified input. The 16 NS-NNS dyads in the study were divided into two subgroups: a modified input group and a unmodified input group. The groups were differentiated by the kind of input that the native speaker gave to the nonnative speaker.  In both groups the NS followed one of the two scripts, transcribed from the data gathered prior to the study. Each of these two subgroups was further subdivided into two more subgroups according to whether or not normal interaction (including request for repetition, clarification, comprehension checks, etc.) was allowed during the first description.  Finally, there was one additional subdivision, depending on whether interaction was allowed during the second description (the nonnative description was not scripted). Their dependent variable was comprehension on the part of the NNS (trial1) and the NS (trial 2), as measured by the degree to which subjects were able to understand instructions and hence accurately place objects on the board.

In the present methodology the preferred style has been the use of the past tense by means of the passive voice, for example; were separated, provided, was given, etc.

We  can also mention that the authors in order to make clearer their methodology have made use, on one hand, of a diagram of the experimental design and, on the other, of a table indicating the wrong number on first trial: nonnatvie speaker placement of objects based on native speaker directions.

 

RESULTS:

            The interpretation of the results are clearly and orderly expressed helped with several tables where the empirical data are essential to confirm or disconfirm the hypotheses established at the end of the introduction .The authors inform us about the way the data is going to be interpreted, classifying them into two groups; on one hand, the natives’ ability to understand the instructions in a initial trial and, on the other, the success of the appropriate use of the language in a second trial. This leads the authors  to divide it into four parts plus the summary of the results.

1. ‘Non native speakers performance based on native speaker descriptions’.

The authors helped with a graph give the results that indicate how the non native participant has fewer mistakes when the input is modified and the interaction is allowed.

1. ‘Native speaker performance based on non native speaker descriptions’.

The authors repeat that this performance takes  place in the second trial, when the natives and non natives interchange their roles and, the non natives are those who have to explain and describe how their native  partners should place the elements on the blackboard. In a second table, the few mistake’s variation that exist among the interactive group and the non interactive is expounded. In this way, the hypothesis about interaction being better understood by the natives is denied.

1. ‘Effects of the interaction’.

The authors underline that this is the main objective of their investigation: to determine which are the effects in the linguistic production  resulting from  an earlier interaction. According to the given results in the table, non natives express better the directions in the second trial  when the earlier trial had the possibility of interacting with his/her native interlocutor, fact that confirms the fourth hypothesis.  Furthermore, they  analyse the influence bearing in the second trial on the fact that in the previous one the input was modified or not. With the study of this variable, there are more mistakes in the second trial, when in the previous one input was not modified, fact that the fifth hypothesis denies.

The authors conclude in this way with the idea that the  modified input helps the non native listener in the immediate task performance but not in the long one.

1. ‘Real-world expectations’.

The authors expound the data obtained after analysing the number of mistakes according to whether or not accuracy was at all dependent on expectations subjects might have about where the objects should go, given real-world knowledge. From the obtained results it is confirmed that real-world expectations are not an important factor in comprehension.

1.   ‘Summary of results’.

In this paragraph it is said that three hypotheses have been confirmed  and three disconfirmed. The authors offer us a clear summary that closes this space giving us a unitary and global vision of the research.

• Hypotheses which were confirmed:

1.Nonnative speakers made fewer errors when they received modified input than when they received unmodified input.

2.Nonative speakers made fewer errors when interaction was allowed than when it was not allowed.

4.The NNSs who had the opportunity to interact on the first trial, when they were receiving directions, were better able to give directions on the second trial.

• Hypotheses which  were disconfirmed:

3.The opportunity for interaction in the discourse did not affect the NNs’s bility to provide more accurate and comprehensible instruction to their NS partners.

5.NNS’s who had received modified input on the first trial, resulting in better performance on trial 1, were better prepared to give direction in trial 2.

6.Whether or not accuracy was at all dependent on expectations subjects might have about where the objects should go, given real-world knowledge. That is to say, expectations are not an important factor in comprehension.

 

DISCUSSION:

            The authors here expose the discussion of their results, that is, their  interpretation by means of  two questions, the first question they seek to address relates to the input conditions,  modified input versus non-modified input’s effect. The second issue they address is  the effect of interaction on subsequent performance.

The discussion section has a great interest because a reasoned argumentation that justifies the obtained results is offered. On one hand, the causes  by which the modified  input improves the non natives understanding and,  the non modified input  which has positive effects on the non immediate performance. On the other hand, whether  the interaction  affects  in a positive  or negative way  the posterior non native  performance. Both questions discussed in this part of the article are  illustrated using examples from the data’s study obtained  in an extended  and well explained way.

Susan M. Gass and Evangeline M. Varonis cited several authors  to justify that their study’s findings are consistent.   In other words, they  in order to evaluate their findings, compare  their results  to other studies.

            The discussion section has preferred the present  tense (eg. We seek, our results show, etc.) and the past tense (eg. The NNS were better…,  The modified input had a negative…etc.) when the authors relate to the results. It is also important to say, that they have written here strong statements and there is not any signal of hidden unexpected results.

Summing up, they have followed the usual moves of  discussions such as reporting accomplishments, evaluating findings and offering interpretations. However, there is no evidence of moves such as warding off counterclaims or stating implications.

Finally, we can say that the authors are giving an idea for further studies saying:

‘…for latent linguistic processing when the learner’s attention is focused on another task may have an important effect on the reorganization of linguistic knowledge and subsequent language production’.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

It is  important to mention that normally in the macrostructure used by most of the research articles after the discussion section we cannot find a section named conclusion, however, this article has it.

It is a lengthy  conclusion   but at the same time it is clear and satisfactory. The authors emphasize the fact that their study has not only discovered the importance of the interaction in the immediate performance but also  it has proved its effects on  long place performance, which is the one that remains represented by the success of the non natives giving instructions when in the previous trial interaction has been allowed.  We can say that the writers of this article, here, have done a  resume of the experiment they have carried out , they, even, add an example of the way the student performed and,  list the authors they named at the beginning dealing with this research.

 

REFERENCES:

            Finally, at the end of the paper, we have a long referent’s list  of related literature and information sources.

            It is important to know that depending on the journal the reference will be written in a style or in another. However, the ‘authors’, ‘editors’, ‘year’ and ‘title’ must be include and, we can see here that the writers of this paper have done it. In this list we can see that in the first part they have written all the journals they have used in their study. They have quoted them in the following way:

Chun, A., Day R., Chenoweth, A., & Luppescu, S, (1982) Erros, interaction, and

correction: A study of native-nonnative conversations. TESOL Quartely, 16, 537-547.

After citing the journals,  they cite  chapters from books:

Long, M., & Ross, S. (1992). Modifications that preserve language and meaning. In

M. Tickoo (Ed.), Simplification. Singapore: Regional Center.