Teaching: Input and Interaction

3. INTRODUCTION

We learned in chapter 2 how intake factors and intake processes interweave and interact with each
other in as yet undetermined ways to convert parts of language input into learner intake. A crucial
dimension of such a conversion, particularly in the context of classroom L2 development, is the
relationship between teaching strategies and learning outcomes. Several studies have been
conducted to investigate the role and relevance of instruction in the L2 classroom. One of the
limitations of these studies is that they have focused narrowly on grammatical instruction rather
than on any wider aspect of language teaching. In fact, as learned in chapter 2, this limitation is true
not only of research related to teaching effectiveness but also research in second-language
acquisition in general and, therefore, we should always keep in mind what Hatch (1978) said a
quarter century ago about using research findings for pedagogic purposes: Apply with caution.

Systematic investigation into the effect of language teaching (read: grammar teaching) began as an
offshoot of what came to be known as morpheme studies (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Larsen-Freeman,
1976). These studies attempted to assess whether, among other things, learning a language in
classroom settings is different from learning a language in naturalistic environments. They revealed
that the acquisition/accuracy order for various grammatical morphemes like singular copula (’s/is),
plural auxiliary (are), possessive (’s), third person singular (-s), and so forth, is more or less the
same regardless of the learner’s L1 background, age, and learning environment (i.e., instructed or
naturalistic). European researchers Wode (1976),

55

feralan.com 56

CHAPTER 3

Felix (1981) and their colleagues also found that the acquisition sequences and strategies of L2
learners in classroom settings paralleled those followed by L2 learners in naturalistic settings.
Although these and other studies of a similar kind dealt with only a handful of frequently occurring
morphemes among a multitude of grammatical structures that constitute language, they hastily
concluded that “the possibility of manipulating and controlling the students’ verbal behavior in the
classroom is in fact quite limited” (Felix, 1981, p. 109).

Such generalizations raised doubts about the effect of classroom instruction thereby prompting a
very basic question: Does L2 instruction make any difference at all? In order to explore this
question, Long (1983) reviewed 11 studies on instructed L2 development conducted up to that point
and came out with ambiguous results. Six studies showed a positive effect of instruction, three
showed minor or no effect, and two were unclear. Long, however, concluded that formal instruction
has positive effects on (a) L2 developmental processes, (b) the rate at which learners acquire the
language, and (c) their ultimate level of attainment. “Instruction is good for you,” he declared rather
encouragingly, “regardless of your proficiency level, of the wider linguistic environment in which you
receive it, and of the type of test you are going to perform on” (1983, p. 379).

In spite of his encouraging conclusions, Long was concerned that the 11 studies available for his
review were hardly the appropriate ones to shed any collective light on the effect of instruction on
L2 development. The reason is threefold. First, the studies had very little research design in
common to put together to seek any common wisdom. Taken together, they involved three types of
learners (English as a second language, English as a foreign language, and Spanish as a second
language), from three different age groups (children, adolescents, and adults) with varying
proficiency levels (beginning, intermediate, and advanced), learning their target language in three
different acquisition environments (rich, poor, and mixed), responding to two different tests
(discrete and integrative) that sought to ascertain their learning outcomes. Secondly, as Long
himself pointed out, most of the studies had failed to control for overall amount of combined
contact and instruction considering the fact that they were conducted in environments where
learners had access to the TL through both formal and natural exposure. Finally, and perhaps most
importantly, the studies claiming to investigate the relationship between instruction and L2
development had bestowed only a scant attention on specific instructional strategies followed by
classroom teachers who participated in the experiments. Besides, several teaching strategies were
clubbed together under generic terms thereby ignoring the possible effects of specific classroom
strategies. Thus, the early studies on the effect of instruction proved to be ineffectual, to say the
least.

feralan.com TEACHING: INPUT AND INTERACTION

57
In retrospect, it appears that we were asking the wrong question. Does instruction make a
difference in L2 development? is as pointless and purposeless as the question, Does nutrition make
a difference in human growth? We can hardly answer the first question in the negative unless we
propose and defend the untenable proposition that the human mind is untrainable. We all know
through experience that learners do learn at least a part of what is taught and tested. The questions
nutritionists normally ask are What kind of nutrition makes a difference? and For who? Likewise, we
should have asked questions such as What kind of instruction makes a difference? In what context?
and Using what method?

It comes as no surprise then that the initial inquiry into the effect of instruction has inevitably led to
more focused studies with greater investigative rigor. Later studies (e.g., Donato & Adair-Hauck,
1992; Doughty, 1991; Lightbown, 1992; Pica, 1987; Spada, 1987; Van Patten & Cadierno, 1993) have
not only sought to rectify some of the conceptual and methodological flaws found in the early
attempts but have also started focusing on the impact of specific teaching strategies on learning-
specified language items. Most of these studies, however, still suffered from the earlier drawback of
dealing narrowly with grammatical instruction. Reviews of these and other recent studies have
shown that instruction does have a role to play (see Doughty, 2003; Norris & Ortega, 2000). In her
review of cases for and against L2 instruction, Doughty (2003), for instance, concluded that
“instruction is potentially effective, provided it is relevant to learners’ needs. However, we will be
forced to acknowledge that the evidence to date for either absolute or relative effectiveness of L2
instruction is tenuous at best, owing to improving, but still woefully inadequate, research
methodology” (p. 256).

Taken together, studies on L2 instruction suggest that proper instructional intervention at the
proper time would be helpful for promoting desired learning outcomes in the L2 classroom. This, of
course, is not a startling revelation because any language learning in a classroom context, as
against learning a language in a naturalistic setting, inevitably involves some degree and some kind
of intervention. We intervene by modifying the content and style of language input, and we
intervene by modifying the nature and scope of interactional opportunities. Input modifications and
interactional activities, then, constitute the foundational structure of any classroom learning and
teaching operation.

3.1. INPUT MODIFICATIONS

It is generally agreed that language input has to be modified in order to make it available and
accessible to the learner. What has been the source of disagreement is the type of modifications
that should be brought about.

feralan.com 58

CHAPTER 3

The bone of contention centers around three strands of thought that can be characterized as (a)
form-based input modifications, (b) meaning-based input modifications, and (c) form- and
meaning-based input modifications.

3.1.1. Form-Based Input Modifications

Historically and until very recently, input modifications have almost always been based on the
formal (or structural) properties of the language, whether they relate to grammatical forms or
communicative functions. Linguistic forms have been the driving force behind learning objectives,
curriculum design, materials production, classroom procedures, and testing techniques. The
essence of form-based input modifications, however, has not remained constant. The changing
norms can best be captured by positing a product-oriented version and a process-oriented version
of form-based input modifications.

The product-oriented version of form-based input modifications treats grammar as a product that
can be analyzed, codified, and presented. It relates to the characteristics of grammar teaching as
propagated and practiced during the heyday of audiolingualism (see chap. 5, this volume, for
details). Within the audiolingual pedagogy, manipulating language input meant selecting
grammatical features, sequencing them in some fashion, making them salient for the learner
through a predominantly teachercentered, metalinguistic, decontextualized instruction involving
explicit pattern practice and explicit error correction. The learner was expected to observe the
grammatical input, examine it, analyze it, imitate it, practice it, internalize it, use it. But, it became
increasingly clear that confining the learner to an exclusively product-oriented, form-based
language input not only distorted the nature of the target language exposed to the learner but also
decreased the learner’s potential to develop appropriate language knowledge/ability. In short, the
product-oriented version of form-based input modifications turned out to be an extremist position.

The process-oriented version of form-based input modifications treats grammar as a network of

systems to be interacted with rather than an objectified body of structures to be mastered. Instead
of emphasizing memory, specific rules, and rule articulation, it focuses on understanding, general
principles, and operational experience. The input modifications advocated here are still form-based
but not based on teaching grammatical structures per se but on creating what Rutherford (1987)
called consciousness raising. He explained that consciousness raising

is the means to an end, not the end itself. That is, whatever it is that is raised to consciousness is
not to be looked upon as an artifact or object of study to be committed to memory by the learner
and thence recalled by him whenever

feralan.com TEACHING: INPUT AND INTERACTION

59

sentences have to be produced. Rather, what is raised to consciousness is not the grammatical
product but aspects of the grammatical process . . . (p. 104)

In the specific context of L2 learning and teaching, it refers to the deliberate attempt to draw the
learners’ attention to the formal processes of their L2 in order to increase the degree of explicitness
required to promote L2 development. Because consciousness is a loaded psychological term that
cannot be easily defined, Sharwood-Smith (1991) suggested a more verifiable term, input
enhancement, to refer to consciousness-raising activities. From a pedagogic point of view, input
enhancement serves the purpose of drawing the learner’s explicit attention to grammatical features
by such activities as highlighting, underlining, rule-giving, and so forth.

The idea of grammatical process was recently expanded by LarsenFreeman (2000, 2003), who
introduced the term, grammaring, to refer to long-overlooked qualities of grammar such as that “it
is a dynamic process in which forms have meanings and uses in a rational, discursive, flexible,
interconnected, and open system” (Larsen-Freeman, 2003, p. 142). Grammaring is seen as the
learner’s knowledge/ability to use grammatical structures accurately, meaningfully, and
appropriately. Language input introduced to the learner then should be modified in such a way as to
make the reason underlying a structure transparent. For example, Larsen-Freeman suggests that
when two different forms exist in a language, as in

There is a book on the table. A book is on the table.

There is a book on the table. A book is on the table.

the underlying principle behind their variation in meaning or use must be presented. As she explains

the meaning of these two sentences is more less the same, but the sentence with there would be
used to introduce new information in normal discourse. The second sentence is much more limited
in frequency and scope. One of its functions is in giving stage directions to the director of a play,
telling the director how to stage some scene in the play. While it may be difficult for students to
figure this difference out on their own, the principle will help them learn to look for ways that
particular grammar structures are distinctively meaningful and/or appropriate. (Larsen-Freeman,
2000, p. 11)

Although the process-oriented, form-based input modifications appear to have a greater intellectual
appeal and instructional relevance than strictly product-oriented, form-based input modifications, it
must be remembered that proponents of both subscribe to similar, linguistically motivated learning
and teaching principles. That is, they believe that formal properties of the language, both structures
and relations, can be systemati-

feralan.com 60

CHAPTER 3

cally analyzed, selected, sequenced, and presented one by one to the learner. They both believe
that the learner will be able to put these discrete items together in order to internalize the totality of
language. Learners exposed to such input modifications may be able to develop higher levels of
analysis of language as system but may not be able to understand the full implications of
communicative use. In other words, predominantly formbased input modifications facilitate the
development of linguistic knowledge/ability but not necessarily pragmatic knowledge/ability both of
which, as we have seen in chapter 2, are required for successful language communication. As a
response to this predicament, it was suggested that the focus be shifted from form to meaning.

3.1.2. Meaning-Based Input Modifications

A forceful articulation of the importance of meaning-based input modifications came a while ago
from Newmark (1963/1970) who argued that “systematic attention to the grammatical form of
utterances is neither a necessary condition nor a sufficient one for successful language learning”
and that ”teaching particular utterances in contexts which provide meaning and usability to learners
is both sufficient . . . and necessary” (p. 217). Because these statements became very influential
and are often misinterpreted, it is important to recall the context in which these were made, and
also the caveat that accompanied them.

Newmark made these statements in a paper entitled “Grammatical Theory and the Teaching of
English as a Foreign Language.” The grammatical theory referred to here is Chomskyan
transformational grammar, which was newly proposed and widely discussed at that time.
Emphasizing the inapplicability of the theory of transformational grammar to language teaching,
Newmark asked language teachers to resist the “great temptations” to write new language-teaching
textbooks reflecting the “neat and precise” grammatical analysis offered by transformational
grammar. It is in this context he suggested that, “we should liberate language teaching from
grammatical theory, and should teach the natural use of language” (1963/1971, p. 218). In a follow-
up paper, Newmark (1966/1970) further clarified his stand by saying that “the important point is that
the study of grammar as such is neither necessary nor sufficient for learning to use a language” (p.
226, emphasis added). What he was objecting to is the study of grammar as such but was in favor
of “a limited kind of structural drill” so long as it is “embedded in a meaningful context” (p. 226).

In spite of the context and the caveat, Newmark’s argument formed one of the bases for an
exclusively meaning-oriented input modification as exemplified, for instance, in Krashen’s input
hypothesis. To put it in a nutshell (see chap. 7, this volume, for details), the input hypothesis
(Krashen,

feralan.com TEACHING: INPUT AND INTERACTION

61

1982 and elsewhere) claimed that we acquire language in only one way: by understanding
messages, that is, by obtaining comprehensible input. Comprehensible input is defined as i + 1,
structures that are a bit beyond the L2 learner’s current level of knowledge/ability. It is considered
to contain all the grammatical structures the acquirer is ready to acquire, in the right order and right
quantity, as long as enough comprehensible input of consistently high quality is provided. Linguistic
knowledge/ability is attained necessarily and sufficiently as the result of mere exposure to instances
of comprehensible input, which can be provided through meaning-oriented activities such as
language games and problem-solving tasks. Form-based language awareness does not play any
direct role in L2 development. A similar argument was made by Prabhu (1987), who stated that “the
development of competence in a second language requires not systematization of language inputs
or maximization of planned practice, but rather the creation of conditions in an effort to cope with
communication” (p. 1).

Language-teaching programs that have systematically followed some of the pedagogic features
that later characterized the input hypothesis, and for which we have a considerable body of
research literature, are the Canadian French immersion programs. These are public school
programs in which speakers of English (the majority language) study in French (the minority
language). The learners have very little interaction with native speakers of French other than their
teachers, and exposure to French comes primarily from teachers and instructional materials.
Although the learners seldom reach near native capability, they eventually emerge as competent L2
speakers (Swain & Lapkin, 1982). According to Krashen (1984), immersion “works” because it
provides learners with a great deal of comprehensible input thereby proving that “subject-matter
teaching is language teaching” (pp. 61–62, emphasis in original).

Krashen’s enthusiastic endorsement notwithstanding, research based on immersion as well as

nonimmersion programs shows that exclusively meaning-oriented input modifications do not lead to
desired levels of grammatical accuracy. Several studies (Lightbown 1992; Lightbown & Spada,
1990; Schmidt, 1993; Van Patten 1990) have shown that even though learners exposed to meaning-
based input modifications speak fluently and confidently, their speech is marked by numerous
grammatical errors. In fact, there is little evidence to show that successful grammar construction
can take place solely through meaning-based input modifications. Reviewing more than two
decades of research in French immersion classes, Swain (1991) concluded that immersion students
are able to understand much of what they hear and read even at early grade levels, and that,
although they are well able to get their meaning across in their second language, even at
intermediate and higher grade levels, they often do so with nontargetlike morphology and syntax. A
probable reason is that language learners who

feralan.com 62

CHAPTER 3

are focusing on meaning may not have the processing space to attend to form at the same time
because of limitations on the number of cognitive psychological operations learners can engage in.
Whatever the reason, it is clear that “learners do not very readily infer knowledge of the language
system from their communicative activities. The grammar, which they must obviously acquire
somehow as a necessary resource for use, proves elusive” (Widdowson 1990, p. 161).

It turns out that it is not just grammatical knowledge/ability that proves elusive; there may be
problems in developing pragmatic knowledge/ability as well. Citing examples from immersion
studies, Swain (1991) argued that “by focusing entirely on meaning, teachers frequently provide
learners with inconsistent and possibly random information about their target language use” (p.
241). A specific example she cites to show how meaning-based input modifications can be
“functionally restricted” relates to the French pronouns tu and vous, which carry information about
both grammatical concepts (singular, plural, or generic) and sociolinguistic use (formal or informal).
An analysis of classroom input showed that the teachers used the pronouns largely to denote their
grammatical uses; there was scarcely any use of vous in its sociolinguistic function marking
politeness. This difference is considered the primary reason for the underuse of vous as a
politeness marker by immersion students.

Furthermore, even if the language input introduced by the teacher is solely meaning-based, there is
no way one can prevent learners from explicitly focusing on form, or vice versa. In other words,
teachers may control input availability in the classroom; they certainly do not control input
acceptability. That belongs to the realm of the learner. Learners may be focusing on both form and
meaning regardless of teacher intention and intervention. There are scholars who believe that a
combination of form- and meaning-based input is what is really needed.

3.1.3. Form- and Meaning-Based Input Modifications

Some of the carefully designed classroom-oriented experiments conducted in the late 80s and early
90s (Doughty, 1991; Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Spada, 1987; Van Patten & Cadierno, 1993)
authenticated what the learners already seem to know, namely, focusing on form and meaning is
more beneficial than focusing on either one of them.

In a study on the development of oral communicative skills, Spada (1987) investigated the
relationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes in three intermediate level
classes of a communicatively based ESL program. Class A received primarily form-based
instruction, Class B received both form- and meaning-based instruction, and Class C received
primarily meaning-based instruction. Her findings revealed that
feralan.com TEACHING: INPUT AND INTERACTION

63

Class B registered a significant improvement, and Classes A and C did not improve as much as
Class B. She concluded that “neither form-based nor meaning-based instruction in itself is
sufficient, but rather, both are required” (p. 153). Her study reinforced her earlier finding that
learners require opportunities for both form-focused and function-focused practice in the
development of particular skill areas, and if one or the other is lacking they do not appear to benefit
as much (Spada, 1986).

In a related study, Lightbown and Spada (1990) investigated the effects of form-focused instruction
and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Their study was part of a long-term
project and the data came from more than a 1000 students in nearly 40 intensive ESL classes and
from over 200 students in regular ESL programs. The instructional strategy consisted of meaning-
based activities, opportunities for the negotiation of meaning in group work, and the provision of
comprehensible input. The teachers who taught these classes differed from each other in terms of
the total amount of time they gave to form-focused activities. The researchers analyzed the
learners’ listening and reading comprehension as well as their ability to speak. They found that
form-based instruction within a communicative context contributes to higher levels of language
knowledge/ability. Lightbown and Spada (1990) concluded that “accuracy, fluency, and overall
communicative skills are probably best developed through instruction that is primarily meaning-
based but in which guidance is provided through timely form-focused activities and correction in
context” (p.443).

A similar conclusion was reached by Doughty (1991), who conducted an experiment focusing on
one grammatical subsystem of English (restrictive relative clauses) with intermediate level
international students from seven different L1 backgrounds. They had very little knowledge of
English relativization as revealed through a pilot test. They were randomly assigned to one of three
groups: two experimental groups (in addition to exposure to relative clauses, the group was
provided with an instructional treatment aimed at improving their ability to relativize in English) and
a control group (in which they were exposed to relative clauses but received no instruction). Of the
two experimental groups, one group (MOG) was given meaning-oriented instruction along with the
bringing to prominence of the structural elements of relativization, and the other group (ROG) was
given exclusively rule-oriented instruction. The third group was called COG (control group). The
study revealed that compared to the control group, both the MOG and ROG groups were equally
effective with respect to gain in relativization, but the MOG alone demonstrated substantial
comprehension of the overall input. Doughty attributes the overall superior performance of the
MOG group to the successful combination of a focus on meaning and the bringing to prominence of
the linguistic properties of relativization in the MOG treatment.

feralan.com 64

CHAPTER 3

The findings of the three experiments just outlined lead us to an interesting proposition, namely,
bringing linguistic properties to prominence within the purview of a meaning-focused instructional
strategy may change the way language data are recognized by the learner as potential language
input, thus favorably shaping intake factors and intake processes (see chap. 2). Such a proposition
has been put to test by Van Patten and Cadierno (1993).

In a carefully designed study, Van Patten and Cadierno (1993) investigated the relationship between
instructional modifications and input processing, a term they use to refer to the process of
converting input into intake. Based on a pretest, they randomly selected three groups of learners
studying Spanish as an L2 in the United States. The first group received “traditional” instruction on
object pronouns and word order, the second received “processing” instruction on the same, and the
third received no instruction at all on the targeted items. Traditional instruction involved presenting
the learners with explicit explanations concerning the form and position of direct object pronouns
within the sentence and then giving them sustained practice, which moved the learners gradually
from mechanical drill to communicative drill. At all times, instruction focused on the production of
the targeted items by the learners, in other words, on their output. In processing instruction,
presentation was dominated by two types of activities that forged form-meaning connections. One
type had subjects listening to or reading utterances and then demonstrating that they had correctly
assigned argument structure to the targeted items. The second type of activity had subjects
respond to the content of an utterance by checking “agree” or “disagree.” At no point did
processing instruction involve the production of the targeted items by the learners. The results of
the experiment showed that unlike traditional instruction, processing instruction altered the way in
which the learners recognized language input, which in turn had an effect on the developing
knowledge/ability of the learners. Based on the results, Van Patten and Cadierno (1993) concluded
that “instruction is more beneficial when it is directed toward how learners perceive and process
input rather than when instruction is focused on having learners practice the language via output”
(p. 54).

In the context of helping learners actively engage form and meaning in a principled way, Long (1991,
1996) proposed what is called focus on form (not to be confused with form-focused input already
discussed for which Long uses the term focus on forms—note the plural. In order to avoid potential
terminological confusion, I hereafter use its abbreviated version, FonF, as suggested by Doughty &
Williams, 1998). According to Long, FonF “overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements as
they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication” (Long,
1991, p. 46) and “consists of an occasional shift of attention to

feralan.com TEACHING: INPUT AND INTERACTION

65

linguistic code features—by the teacher and/ or one or more studentstriggered by perceived
problems with comprehension or production. (Long & Robinson, 1998, p. 23). In other words, the
learner’s attention to linguistic features will be drawn explicitly if and only if it is necessitated by
communicative demand.

The input modification required for FonF places emphasis on designing pedagogic tasks based on
the future language needs of a particular group of learners, tasks such as attending a job interview,
making an airline reservation, reading a restaurant menu or a journal abstract, writing a lab report,
or taking a driving test. For instance, learners may be given a task the solution of which requires
them

to synthesize information on economic growth in Japan from two or more written sources and use it
to graph trends in imports and exports over a 10year period. Successful completions of the task
involves them in reading (and rereading) brief written summaries of sales trends for different
sectors of the Japanese economy, each of which uses such terms as rose, fell, grew, sank,
plummeted, increased, decreased, declined, doubled, deteriorated, and exceeded. The frequency
of these lexical items in the input, due to their repeated use in the different passages, and/or their
being underlined or italicized, makes them more salient, and so increase the likelihood of their being
noticed by students. (Long & Robinson, 1998, pp. 24–25)
A task like this, as Doughty (2003) pointed out, helps learners integrate forms and meaning, create
their metalinguistic awareness, and increase their noticing capacity all of which, as we discussed in
chapter 2, promote successful intake processing and ultimately language development.

An unmistakable lesson we learn from the aforementioned discussion is that language should be
presented to learners in such a way that they recognize it as potential language input. We also learn
that instruction should help learners obtain language input in its full functional range, relevant
grammatical rules, and sociolinguistic norms in context along with helpful corrective feedback. In
other words, both form- and meaning-based input modifications are essential for an effective L2
teaching program. Yet, just the input, however modified, is not sufficient. What is additionally
required for learners to recognize and internalize form-meaning relationships is the opportunity for
meaningful interaction, and hence the importance of interactional activities in classroom L2 learning
and teaching.

3.2. INTERACTIONAL ACTIVITIES

Although the L2 literature presents several terms with attendant conceptual ambiguities to refer to
conversation in the classroom, the two that have been widely used are interaction and negotiation.
Both of them are used to mean

feralan.com 66

CHAPTER 3

something that is very different from their general usage involving intricate sociolinguistic norms
governing communication (see, e.g., the discussion on Hymes’ SPEAKING acronym in chap. 1, this
volume). The term interaction or negotiation or negotiated interaction generally refers to
conversational exchanges that arise when participants try to accommodate potential or actual
problems of understanding, using strategies such as comprehension checks or clarification checks.
Such an exercise is also perceived to promote the learners’ processing capacity specifically by
helping them with conscious noticing required to convert input into intake (Gass, 1997; Long, 1996).

Characterizing such a definition of interaction as limited and limiting, I have argued elsewhere
(Kumaravadivelu, 2003a) that it is beneficial to isolate three interrelated dimensions of interaction
and have discussed them using, although it is a little bit of a stretch, Halliday’s macrofunctions of
language: textual, interpersonal, and ideational (see chap. 1, this volume, for details). I have
suggested that in the context of classroom communication, we should actually talk about
interaction as a textual activity, interaction as an interpersonal activity, and interaction as an
ideational activity. The first refers to the linguistic realizations that create coherent written or
spoken texts that fit a particular interactional event, enabling L2 learners and their interlocutors to
understand the message as intended. Specifically, it focuses on syntactic and semantic
conversational signals, and its outcome is measured primarily in terms of linguistic knowledge/
ability. The second refers to the participants’ potential to establish and maintain social relationships
and have interpersonal encounters, and its outcome is measured in terms of personal rapport
created in the classroom. The third refers to an expression of one’s self-identity based on one’s
experience of the real or imaginary world in and outside the classroom. Specifically, it focuses on
ideas and emotions the participants bring with them, and its outcome is measured primarily in terms
of pragmatic knowledge/ability. By introducing such a tripartite division, I am not suggesting that
the three dimensions are equal or separate. Any successful interactional activity will mark the
realization of all three dimensions in varying degrees of sophistication. This division is principally for
ease of description and discussion. It is fair to say that so far, L2 interactional research has focused
largely on interaction as a textual activity, and to some extent on interaction as interpersonal
activity. It has almost completely ignored interaction as an ideational activity. Let us briefly consider
each of them.

3.2.1. Interaction as a Textual Activity

Most L2 interactional studies treat interaction primarily as a textual activity in which learners and
their interlocutors modify their speech phonologically, morphologically, lexically, and syntactically in
order to maximize

feralan.com TEACHING: INPUT AND INTERACTION

67

chances of mutual understanding, and minimize instances of communication breakdown. Such a

seemingly excessive preoccupation with linguistic aspects of interaction can best be understood in
a historical perspective. A major impetus for L2 interactional studies came from research on
caretaker talk conducted in the context of first-language acquisition. Empirical studies carried out
during the 1970s (R. Brown 1973; Snow 1972; Snow & Ferguson 1977, and others) showed that the
mother’s speech to the child contained remarkably well-formed utterances characterized by a
number of formal adjustments in comparison to speech used in adult–adult conversations. The
formal adjustments include: a lower mean length of utterances, the use of sentences with a limited
range of syntactic–semantic relations, few subordinate and coordinate constructions, modified
pitch, intonation and rhythm, and a high level of redundancy.

Extending the concept of caretaker talk to L2 learners, researchers studied modified speech used
by competent speakers of a language to outsiders who were felt to have very limited or no
knowledge/ability of it at all. This modified speech has been referred to as foreigner talk. Ferguson
(1975) found that foreigner talk is very similar to caretaker talk. Specifically, he found that foreigner
talk is characterized by a slow rate of delivery, clear articulation, pauses, emphatic stress,
exaggerated pronunciation, paraphrasing, substitution of lexical items by synonyms, and omission,
addition, and replacement of syntactic features. Hopping from foreigner talk to teacher talk was an
easy and logical step. Not surprisingly then, teacher talk, that is, the language a teacher uses to talk
to L2 learners, was found to contain characteristics of foreigner talk (Henzl, 1974). Further, it was
found that teacher talk increased in linguistic complexity with the increasing proficiency level of the
learners (Gaies, 1977).

Recognizing that L2 interactional studies so far had narrowly focused on input, be it foreigner talk or
teacher talk, and hence had overlooked “the most important factor of all,” Hatch (1978) observed:
“it is not enough to look at input and to look at frequency; the important thing is to look at the
corpus as a whole and examine the interactions that take place within conversations to see how that
interaction, itself, determines frequency of forms and how it shows language functions evolving” (p.
403). The lead given by Hatch has spawned several studies on the role of interaction resulting in a
substantial body of literature.

Foremost among the L2 interactionists is Long (1981, and elsewhere), who makes a distinction
between modified input and modified interaction. The former involves a modification of language
input that has short phrases and sentences, fewer embeddings, and greater repetition of nouns and
verbs, whereas the latter involves a modification of the conversational structure that has a
considerable number of comprehension checks, confirmation checks, and clarification checks. As
paraphrased by Allwright and

feralan.com 68
CHAPTER 3

Bailey (1991), a comprehension check is the speaker’s query of the interlocutors to see if they have
understood what was said: Do you understand? or Do you get what I’m saying? A confirmation
check is the speaker’s query as to whether or not the speaker’s (expressed) understanding of the
interlocutor’s meaning is correct: Oh, so are you saying you did live in London? A clarification check
is a request for further information or help in understanding something the interlocutor has
previously said: I don’t understand exactly. What do you mean?

Long found that although modified input is unquestionably important, it is participation in

meaningful interaction made possible through modified interaction that significantly contributed to
comprehension leading to L2 development. Based on his work, he proposed a two-part hypothesis:
(a) interactional modifications geared to solving communication difficulties help to make input
comprehensible, and (2) comprehensible input promotes L2 development. Subsequent research by
Pica, Young, and Doughty (1987) and others confirmed the first, but not the second, part of the
hypothesis. They found that learners who were exposed to linguistically unmodified input with
opportunities to negotiate meaning understood it better than learners who were exposed to
linguistically simplified version of the input but were offered no opportunity for such negotiation.

Studies on interaction as a textual activity have clearly demonstrated that interactional

modifications help learners become aware of form-meaning relationships. Several studies have
questioned the claim that modified input can be made comprehensible without any active
participation on the part of the learner. For instance, in a comparative study on the effects of input
modifications and of interactional modifications, Pica et al. (1987) found that comprehension was
assisted by the interactional modifications, and that input modifications, even with reduced
linguistic complexity, had no such effect.

One does not have to look far to see the reasons for this. Input modifications, though crucial, do not
by themselves offer opportunities for interaction. They may make some of the structural–semantic
features salient, but they do not make structural–semantic relationships transparent. In other words,
input modifications may provide potentially acceptable input; but, they do not help learners learn
the relationship between form and meaning in order to develop the necessary knowledge/ability to
convey their intended meaning in an interactive speech event. It is the learner’s interactional efforts
that make form-meaning relationships in the TL data acceptable and internalizable. As Allwright and
Bailey (1991) pointed out, “it is the work required to negotiate that spurs language acquisition,
rather than the intended outcome of the work—comprehensible input” (p. 123). Interactional
modifications help learners focus on the meaningful use of particular linguistic features, and
practice the productive use of those fea-

feralan.com TEACHING: INPUT AND INTERACTION

69

tures. They help learners stretch their limited linguistic repertoire, thereby resulting in opportunities
for further L2 development (for more details, see Gass, 1997).

Although classroom interaction by definition includes learner production, the role of learner output
in L2 development was not given any serious consideration for a long time. The scope of interaction
as a linguistic activity has now been extended to include the effect of learner output, particularly
after the emergence of two output-related hypotheses: the comprehensible output hypothesis
(Swain, 1985) and the auto-input hypothesis (Schmidt & Frota, 1986). Both these hypotheses
emphasize the role played by the learner’s output in shaping L2 development. They highlight the
importance of learner output produced in the process of meaningful interaction as it provides the
learner with the opportunity to form and test initial hypotheses, and the opportunity to pay
particular attention to the linguistic means of communicative expression. A study by Pica, Holliday,
Lewis, and Morgenthaler (1989) found that comprehensible output was an outcome of linguistic
demands placed on the learner in the course of interaction. Further research by Swain (1995) and
others has confirmed the importance of output.

The precise role of interactional modifications in general has not been sufficiently investigated (see
Gass, 2003, for a recent review). However, there seems to be a consensus among researchers that
L2 learning environment must include opportunities for learners to engage in meaningful interaction
with competent speakers of their L2 if they are to discover the formal and functional rules
necessary for comprehension and production. As the studies cited earlier show, what enables
learners to move beyond their current receptive and productive capacities when they need to
understand unfamiliar language input or when required to produce a comprehensible message are
opportunities to modify and restructure their interaction with their interlocutors until mutual
comprehension is reached.
That meaningful interaction is crucial for L2 development has been widely recognized. There has
not been adequate recognition, however, that providing interactional opportunities means much
more than providing opportunities for an explicit focus on linguistic features or for a possible form-
meaning relationships embedded in the input data. Studies that approach interaction primarily as a
textual activity can offer only a limited perspective on the role of interaction in L2 development, for
they treat interactional modifications as no more than conversational adjustments. Clearly,
interaction is much broader a construct than that. It entails, minimally, a spectrum of linguistic,
social, and cultural constructs that create the very context of language communication. Therefore,
in order to facilitate an effective interplay of various intake factors and intake processes discussed
in the previous chapter, we may have to go beyond the narrow con-

feralan.com 70

CHAPTER 3

fines of interaction as a textual activity, and consider the role of interaction as an interpersonal
activity and also interaction as an ideational activity, among other yet unknown possibilities.

3.2.2. Interaction as an Interpersonal Activity

Unlike interaction as a textual activity that deals with conversational adjustments, interaction as an
interpersonal activity deals with interpersonal communication. Classroom community is a
minisociety nested within a larger society. It has its own rules, regulations, and role relationships.
Interaction in such a minisociety is essentially a social process involving, as Breen (1985) pointed
out, all its participants in verbal and nonverbal interaction that exists on a continuum from ritualized,
predictable, phatic communion to dynamic, unpredictable, diversely interpreted communication,
just as in any social interaction. Classroom community presents different contexts for different
participants who bring different social realities with them. It also represents a tension between the
internal world of the individual and the social world of the group. This tension requires individuals to
adapt their learning process to the sociopsychological resources of the group, just as the group’s
psychic and social process unfolds from the individual contributions of a learner.

Interaction as an interpersonal activity, therefore, has the potential to create a conducive

atmosphere in which the other two interactional activities—textual and ideational—can flourish.
Such a potential has not been adequately explored, much less exploited. Studies conducted by
WongFillmore (e.g., 1989) reveal that social processes are as important as cognitive processes for
successful L2 development. As we have seen in chapter 2, social processes are steps by which both
the learners and competent speakers of the TL create and shape appropriate social settings in
which it is possible and desirable to communicate by means of the TL. In a research study, Donato
and Adair-Hauck (1992) showed how groups or dyads engaged in social interactions both in and
outside the classroom foster the formation of linguistic awareness in learners. Taking a Vygotskyan
perspective to social processes of language learning, they argue for an interactional approach in
which social discourse is central to the teaching–learning relationship.

Vygotskyan sociocultural theory provides a richer and deeper interpretation of the role of
interaction in the language classroom (Hall, 2002; Lantoff, 2000). It focuses on the construction of
interpersonal interactions where participants actively and dynamically negotiate not just textual
meaning, but also their social relationships. Such an approach treats interaction as a social practice
that shapes and reshapes language learning. Thus, as Ellis (1999) explained, “socio-cultural theory
has the greater potential as it

feralan.com TEACHING: INPUT AND INTERACTION

71

emphasizes the collaborative nature in meaning making in discourse in general, not just in
exchanges where communication breakdown occurs” (p. 224).

In fact, at the pedagogic core of interaction as an interpersonal activity are opportunities for
increased learner–learner interaction and greater topic control on the part of the learner. Learner–
learner interaction, otherwise known in the L2 literature as nonnative speaker/nonnative speaker
(NNS/NNS) interaction, was initially thought to provide what is called “junky” input data, which can
hardly help on successful L2 learning. However, Yule and Gregory (1989), for instance, found
“sufficient evidence to suggest that the benefits of modified interaction, in terms of creating more
comprehensible input, can actually be obtained in a situation which does not involve native
speaking interlocutors” (p. 42). Similarly other studies on classroom interactional analysis
demonstrate that NNS/NNS interactive discourse is equally beneficial in promoting L2
comprehension and production (see Gass, 1997). According to these studies, NNS/NNS partners
produce more and frequent instances of interactional modifications, and employ more
communication strategies than do NS/NNS partners thereby enhancing their chances of L2
comprehension.

Closely linked to the opportunity made available for learner–learner interaction is the flexibility given
to learners in nominating topics for discussion in class. During the early part of interactional
research, Hatch (1978) reported that giving the learners the freedom to nominate topics provided
an effective basis for interactional opportunities. Although not enough work has been done on the
effect of learner topic control, a study by Slimani (1989) found that learners benefited more from
self- and peernominated topics than from teacher nominated topics. Reflecting on learner-topic
control, Ellis (1992) rightly observes,

Having control over the topic is also one way of ensuring that the linguistic complexity of the input
is tailored to the learner’s own level. Better opportunities for negotiating meaning when a
communication problem arises are likely to occur. Topic control may also stimulate more extensive
and more complex production on the part of the learner (p. 177)

3.2.3. Interaction as an Ideational Activity

Both interaction as textual and interaction as interpersonal activities can provide only a limited
perspective because they do not take into account the social, cultural, political, and historical
processes and practices that shape language learning and teaching. In other words, they both fail to
recognize language as ideology (cf. chap. 1, this volume). Language, as Weeden (1997) so aptly
stated, “is the place where actual and possible forms of social organization and their likely social
and political consequences are de-

feralan.com 72

CHAPTER 3

fined and contested. Yet it is also the place where our sense of ourselves, our subjectivity, is
constructed” (p. 21). Thus, language is not simply a network of interconnected linguistic systems;
rather, it is a web of interlinked sociopolitical and historical factors that shape one’s identity and
voice. In such a context, the development of the ability to speak one’s mind and “the ability to
impose reception” (Bourdieu, 1991) are of paramount importance. It is, therefore, no longer
sufficient if interactional modifications provide the learners only with the opportunity to fix
communication breakdowns or to foster personal relationships in class. They must also provide
them with some of the tools necessary for identity formation and social transformation.

Nobody emphasized this critical nature of education more and with greater conviction than critical
pedagogists such as Giroux, Shor, Simon, and others who, influenced by the pioneering thoughts of
Paulo Freire, looked at the classroom as an ideological site—a site that is socially constructed,
politically motivated, and historically determined. Therefore, critical pedagogy has to empower
classroom participants “to critically appropriate forms of knowledge outside of their immediate
experience, to envisage versions of a world which is ‘not yet’ in order to alter the grounds on which
life is lived” (Simon, 1988, p. 2). Such a pedagogy would take seriously the sociopolitical, historical
conditions that create the cultural forms and interested knowledge that give meaning to the lives of
teachers and learners. “In one sense, this points to the need to develop theories, forms of
knowledge, and social practices that work with the experiences that people bring to the
pedagogical setting” (Giroux, 1988, p.134).

Critical pedagogists call for an “empowering education” that relates “personal growth to public life
by developing strong skills, academic knowledge, habits of inquiry, and critical curiosity about
society, power, inequality, and change” (Shor 1992, p. 15); and one that helps students explore the
subject matter in its sociopolitical, historical contexts with critical themes integrated into student
language and experience. They consider contemporary language education “as somewhat bizarre in
that it legitimates and limits language issues as technical and developmental” (Giroux & Simon,
1988, p. 131) and believe that language education must be “viewed as a form of learning that not
only instructs students into ways of ‘naming’ the world but also introduces them to particular social
relations” (Giroux & Simon, 1988, p. 131).

In the same vein, critical linguists argue that “all representation is mediated, moulded by the value-
systems that are ingrained in the medium (language in this case) used for representation; it
challenges common sense by pointing out that something could have been represented in some
other way, with a very different significance” (Fowler, 1996, p. 4). Saying that ideology and power
that constitute dominant discourses are hidden from ordi-

feralan.com TEACHING: INPUT AND INTERACTION

73

nary people, critical linguists seek to make them visible by engaging in a type of critical discourse
analysis that “is more issue-oriented than theoryoriented” (van Dijk, 1997, p. 22). By doing so, they
hope to shed light on the way power relations work within the society. They thus move from the
local to the global displaying “how discourse cumulatively contributes to the reproduction of macro
structures . . .” (Fairclough, 1995, p. 42).

As can be expected, critical linguists pointedly emphasize the role of critical language awareness in
developing sociopolitical consciousness. Fairclough, in particular, believes that critical language
awareness “can lead to reflexive analysis of practices of domination implicit in the transmission and
learning of academic discourse, and the engagement of learners in the struggle to contest and
change such practices” (Fairclough, 1995, p. 222). He further points out that language learners can
learn to contest practices of domination only if the relationship between language and power is
made explicit to them.

Pointing out that researchers in L2 interactional analysis have shied away from any serious
engagement with the ideological forces acting upon classroom discourse, I have proposed what is
called critical classroom discourse analysis (CCDA; Kumaravadivelu, 1999a). The primary function
of such an analysis is to play a reflective role, enabling teachers to reflect on and to cope with
sociocultural and sociopolitical structures that directly or indirectly shape the character and content
of classroom interaction. I have argued that

language teachers can ill afford to ignore the sociocultural reality that influences identity formation
in and outside the classroom nor can they afford to separate learners’ linguistic needs and wants
from their sociocultural needs and wants. Negotiation of discourse meaning and its analysis should
not be confined to the acquisitional aspects of input and interaction, or to the instructional
imperatives of form/ function focused language learning activities or to the conversational routines
of turn-taking and turn-giving sequences; instead, they should also take into account discourse
participants’ complex and competing expectations and beliefs, identities and voices, fears and
anxieties. (Kumaravadivelu, 1999a, p. 472)

Drawing from the CCDA perspective, I suggest that interaction as an ideational activity must
necessarily address questions such as:

• If classroom interaction is socially constructed, politically motivated, and historically determined,

what are the ways in which we can study and understand the impact of these forces on interactional
modifications?
• If discourse participants bring to the classroom their racialized, stratified, and gendered
experiences, how can we identify the way(s) in

feralan.com 74

CHAPTER 3

which these experiences motivate the style and substance of classroom interaction?

• If the objective of language education should not be merely to facilitate effective language use but
also to promote critical engagement among discourse participants, then how can we analyze and
assess the extent to which critical engagement is facilitated in the classroom?

• If the learner’s voice has to be recognized and respected, how might their personal purposes,
attitudes, and preferred ways of doing things be reconciled with interactional rules and regulations,
and instructional aims and objectives?

• If negotiation of discourse meaning is not confined to the acquisitional aspects of input and
interaction, but include expectations and beliefs, identities, and voices, fears and anxieties of the
participants, how might such a comprehensive treatment help or hinder the proper management of
classroom interaction?

• If classroom discourse lends itself to multiple perspectives depending on discourse participants’

preconceived notions of learning, teaching, and learning outcomes, how can we identify and
understand possible mismatches between intentions and interpretations of classroom aims and
events?

Clearly, investigations of these and other related questions will provide additional insights
necessary to determine the nature and scope of interaction as an ideational activity.

An increasing number of scholars in L2 learning and teaching have expressed similar critical
thoughts about power and inequality in L2 education as well. For example, Norton (2000)
introduced the concept of investment, which presupposes that when language learners interact,
they are not only exchanging information but “are constantly organizing and reorganizing a sense of
who they are and how they relate to the social world. Thus an investment in the target language is
also an investment in a learner’s own identity, an identity which is constantly changing across time
and space” (pp. 10–11). Similarly, Benesch (2001), demonstrated how “all teaching is ideological,
whether or not the politics are acknowledged” (p. 46), and has shown us how teaching English for
academic purposes can usefully address students’ multiple identities by engaging them in decisions
affecting their lives in and out of school. Hall (2002) argued for a teaching agenda that is embedded
in a sociohistorical and/or sociopolitical authority. Johnston (2003) called for a particular way of
seeing the language classroom and has sought “to reveal the value-laden nature of our work in the
language classroom and to provide tools for analyzing that work” (p. 5). A common thread that runs
through all these works is an unfailing emphasis on interaction as an ideational activity.

feralan.com TEACHING: INPUT AND INTERACTION

75

To sum up this section on interactional activities, if interaction as a textual activity focuses on

formal concepts, and interaction as an interpersonal activity focuses on social context, then
interaction as an ideational activity may be said to focus on ideological content. If the first enables
learners to modify conversational signals, the second encourages them to initiate interactional
topics, the third empowers them to construct their individual identity. If first measures quality of
interaction in terms of gains in linguistic knowledge, the second measures it in terms of gains in
sociocultural knowledge. The three types of interaction may be said to produce three types of
discourse: (a) interaction as a textual activity produces instructional discourse resulting in better
conversational understanding; (b) interaction as an interpersonal activity produces informational
discourse resulting in superior social communication; and (c) interaction as an ideational activity
produces ideological discourse resulting in greater sociopolitical consciousness. These three types
of activities, however, should not be viewed as hierarchical, that is, they should not be associated
with the traditional levels of proficiency—beginning, intermediate, and advanced. From a language-
acquisitional point of view, they make it easier for learners of various levels to notice potential
language input, and recognize syntactic–semantic relationships embedded in the input, thereby
maximizing their learning potential.

Instructional design that deals with the selection and sequencing of language content in order to
maximize the interplay between input and interaction on one hand, and the learner and the learning
process on the other hand, is yet another important piece of the pedagogic puzzle. In the next
section, I turn to the design issues under the general rubric: content specifications.

3.3. CONTENT SPECIFICATIONS

One of the essential components of any language teaching program is syllabus or curriculum, which
specifies the what or the content of language learning and teaching. The two terms are often used
interchangeably although they may indicate a hierarchical relationship where curriculum refers
broadly to all aspects of language policy, language planning, teaching methods, and evaluation
measures, whereas syllabus relates narrowly to the specification of content and the sequencing of
what is to be taught. This section is limited to syllabus as a content-specifier.

3.3.1. Syllabus Characteristics

A well-designed language teaching syllabus seeks mainly (a) to clarify the aims and objectives of
learning and teaching, and (b) to indicate the classroom procedures the teacher may wish to follow.
More specifically, any

feralan.com 76

CHAPTER 3

syllabus, according to Breen (2001, p. 151), should ideally provide the following:

• A clear framework of knowledge and capabilities selected to be appropriate to overall aims;

• continuity and a sense of direction in classroom work for teacher and students;

• a record for other teachers of what has been covered in the course;

• a basis for evaluating students’ progress;

• a basis for evaluating the appropriateness of the course in relation to overall aims and student
needs, identified both before and during the course;

• content appropriate to the broader language curriculum, the particular class of learners, and the
educational situation and wider society in which the course is located.

Of course, the assumption behind this ideal list of syllabus objectives is that they will enable
teaching to become more organized and more effective. In that sense, a syllabus is more a teaching
organizer than a learning indicator, although a well-conceived and well-constructed syllabus is
supposed to relate as closely as possible to learning processes.

But to expect any close connection between teaching design and learning device is to ignore the
role of learner intake factors on intake processes that we discussed in chapter 2. It is precisely for
this reason Corder (1967) talked about the notion of a “built-in-syllabus” that learners themselves
construct based on the language content presented to them and in conjunction with intake factors
and processes. As Corder rightly asserted, the learner syllabus is organic rather than linear, that is,
learners appear to learn several items simultaneously rather than sequentially retaining some,
rejecting others and reframing certain others. What is therefore needed is a psycholinguistic basis
for syllabus construction.

A well-known work that attempted to determine a possible set of psycholinguistically valid criteria
for syllabus construction was reported by Manfred Pienemann and his colleagues. In a series of
empirical studies, Pienemann (1984, 1987) investigated the acquisitional sequence of German word
order rules:

Stage 1: X = canonical order

Romance learners of German as a Second Language (GSL) start out with a subject–verb–object
order as their initial hypothesis about German word order, for example, die kinder spielen mit ball
(‘the children play with the ball’).

feralan.com TEACHING: INPUT AND INTERACTION

77

Stage 2: X + 1 adverb-preposing

For example, da kinder spielen (‘there children play’). This preposing rule is optional in German. But
once this rules is applied, Standard German requires a word order like ‘there play children’ (i.e.,
inversion).

Stage 3: X + 2 = verb separation

For example, alle kinder muß die pause machen (‘all children must the break have’). Before the verb
separation is acquired, the word order in the interlanguage is the same as in sentences with main
verbs only (cf. the English equivalent—all children must have a break). Verb separation is obligatory
in Standard German.

Stage 4: X + 3 = inversion

For example, dann hat sie wieder die knoch gebringt (‘then has she again the bone bringed’). In
Standard German, subject and inflected verbal element have to be inverted after preposing of
elements.

From a group of Italian children learning German as a second language in a naturalistic environment,
Pienemann selected 10 who were either at Stage 2 or Stage 3 in their L2 development. The subjects
were given classroom instruction for 2 weeks on the structure from Stage 4, that is, inversion. When
they were tested for the development of the newly instructed structure, Pienemann found that
children who were at Stage 3 progressed to Stage 4, but children who were at Stage 2 remained at
the same stage. The study, he surmised, demonstrated that the relevant acquisitional stages are
interrelated in such a way that at each stage, the processing prerequisites for the following stage
are developed.

Based on his findings, Pienemann proposed what he called a learnability/ teachability hypothesis.
The learnability hypothesis states that learners can benefit from classroom instruction only when
they are psycholinguistically ready for it. The learnability of a structure in turn constrains the
effectiveness of teaching, which is the teachability hypothesis. The teachability hypothesis predicts
that instruction can only promote language acquisition if the interlanguage of the L2 learner is close
to the point when the structure to be taught is acquired in the natural setting so that sufficient
processing prerequisites are developed.

Notice that the teachability hypothesis does not claim that teaching has no influence whatsoever on
L2 development. Rather, it maintains that the influence of teaching is restricted to the learning items
for which the learner is ready to process. Pienemann argued that, provided the learner is at the
appropriate acquisitional stage, instruction can improve acquisition with respect to (a) the speed of
acquisition, (b) the frequency of rule application,

feralan.com 78

CHAPTER 3

and (c) the different linguistic contexts in which the rule has to be applied. From his findings,
Pienemann derived two general tenets for L2 teaching:

The principles of L2 development are not only a more reliable background for psycholinguistically
plausible simple–complex criteria in material grading than the present intuitive procedures, but they
are a necessary background for grading, since formal L2 learning is subject to a set of learning
principles which are shared by formal and natural L2 developments. Thus, teaching is only possible
within the margin determined by these principles. As a consequence, any learning task which
contradicts these principles is not-learnable; it would ask too much of the learner. (Pienamann,
1984, pp. 40–41)

The learnability/teachability hypothesis as an idea makes eminent sense and has pointed toward a
fruitful line of research (see Pienamann, 2003, for a recent review of his and related works).
However, its validity and its applicability have been questioned because of the small size of the
sample and also because of practical problems, like identifying the learners’ current state of
grammar. Besides, further research by others (e.g., Lightbown, 1985) demonstrated that classroom
learners develop their language in a sequence that has no bearing on the sequence introduced by
the teacher. The general consensus now is that we just do not have adequate knowledge of the
learner’s language-processing capacity in order to coordinate the teaching sequence with learning
sequence.

In spite of the advances made in psycholinguistic research, our rationale for selecting and grading
language input presented to the learner is no more objective today than it was more than a quarter
century ago when Mackay (1965) discussed the highly subjective notions of “difficulty” and
“complexity.” Pointing out that selection is an “inherent” characteristic of any language teaching
enterprise because, “it is impossible to teach the whole of language,” Mackey (1965) identified
three major criteria for selection: frequency, range, and availability. Frequency refers to the items
that occur the most often in the linguistic input that the learners are likely to encounter. It is,
therefore, tied to the linguistic needs and wants of the learners. Range, on the other hand, is the
spread of an item across texts or contexts. In other words, an item that is found and used in several
communicative contexts is more important than the one that is confined to one or two contexts.
Although frequency of an item answers the question how often it occurs, range answers the
questions where it is used, by whom, and for what purposes. Availability relates to the degree to
which an item is necessary and appropriate, and it also corresponds to the readiness with which it is
remembered and used.

Gradation deals with sequencing (which comes before which) and grouping (what goes with what)
of linguistic items. According to Kelly (1969), syllabus designers have historically used three basic
principles for

feralan.com TEACHING: INPUT AND INTERACTION

79

determining the sequencing of linguistic input: complexity, regularity, and productivity. The first
principle suggests a movement from the easy to the difficult, the second from the regular to the
irregular, and the third from the more useful to the less useful. Unlike sequencing, grouping is
concerned with the systems of a language, and its structures (Mackey, 1965). Grouping attempts to
answer the question: What sounds, words, phrases, or grammatical structures can be grouped and
taught together? For instance, the simple present (habitual) may be grouped with words like usually,
often, and every, as in I go to the park every weekend. Similarly, words may be grouped together by
association (chair, table, furniture, seat, sit, etc.).

The putting together of the selected and graded language input is generally governed by the overall
theoretical stance adopted by the syllabus designer. Once again, the L2 literature presents a
plethora of syllabuses as reflected in labels such as the structural syllabus, the notional-functional
syllabus, the task-based syllabus, the discourse syllabus, the skill-based syllabus, the content-
based syllabus, the process-syllabus, the procedural syllabus, and so forth. Although one can
discern subtle and sometimes significant variations among these in terms of content as well as
method of teaching, there are certainly overlapping features among them. A fruitful way of
understanding the basic philosophy governing these types of syllabus is to put them into broad
classifications.
3.3.2. Syllabus Classifications

Nearly a quarter century ago, Wilkins (1976) proposed two broad classifications of syllabus:
synthetic syllabus and analytic syllabus. The underlying assumption behind the synthetic syllabus is
that a language system can be (a) analyzed into its smaller units of grammatical structures, lexical
items, or functional categories; (b) classified in some manageable and useful way; and (c)
presented to the learner one by one for their understanding and assimilation. The learners then are
expected to synthesize all the separate elements in order to get the totality of the language.
Because the synthesis is done by the learner, the syllabus is dubbed synthetic. The language-
centered as well as learner-centered methods discussed in chapter 5 and chapter 6 follow the
synthetic syllabus. As we see in much detail in those chapters, language-centered pedagogists
devised suitable classroom procedures for teachers to present, and help learners synthesize,
discrete items of grammar and vocabulary while learner-centered pedagogists did the same, adding
notional and functional categories to the linguistic items.

In the analytic syllabus, the language input is presented to the learner, not piece by piece, but in
fairly large chunks. These chunks will not have any specific linguistic focus; instead, they will bring
the learner’s attention to the communicative features of the language. They are connected texts in
the

feralan.com 80

CHAPTER 3

form of stories, games, problems, tasks, and so forth. It is the responsibility of the learner to
analyze the connected texts into its smaller constituent elements, hence the term, analytic.
Learning-centered methods discussed in chapter 7 adhere to the analytic approach to syllabus
construction.

It is not the purpose of this chapter to discuss in detail how these syllabus types are linked to other
aspects of language teaching such as teaching strategies, textbook production, and evaluation
measures. These will be explained with examples as we discuss different categories of method in
Part II of the volume.

3.4. CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I focused on various aspects of input, interaction, and syllabus design as they
impact on classroom instruction. In spite of the impressive knowledge we have gained on the nature
and relevance of input and interactional modifications, we have only a limited understanding of their
role in L2 learning and teaching. A primary reason is that, as mentioned earlier, studies on
classroom instruction have focused generally and narrowly on the impact of grammatical instruction
rather than on the intricate and intractable issue of the interplay between input and interaction on
one hand and between them and intake factors and intake processes on the other hand. The fact
that research on instructional modifications has not substantively addressed this crucial relationship
should have a sobering influence on our readiness to draw implications for pedagogic purposes.

But still, applied linguists are left with no option but to make use of the still developing knowledge
for drawing useful and useable ideas for language teaching. According to Corder (1984),

There are those who believe that second language acquisition research is still at such a preliminary
stage that it is premature to base any proposals for language teaching upon it yet. There are others,
among whom I count myself, who believe that it is the task of the applied linguist to make practical
use of whatever knowledge is available at the time. We cannot constantly be waiting to see what is
around the next corner. (p. 58)

Indeed, without waiting to see what is around the next corner, applied linguists have, from time to
time, readily conceived and constructed a succession of language-teaching methods based on
insights from whatever research findings that were available to them. In the same way, I attempt to
use the current state of knowledge to describe and evaluate their successes and failures in order to
see what we can learn from them. More specifically, I use the features of language, learning, and
teaching discussed so far to take a close and critical look at major categories of language teaching
methods. With that objective in mind, let us turn to Part II