DISCOURSE ASPECTS OF
INTERLANGUAGE
(Rod Ellis)
GROUP 3 :
Alimatun Nikmah
(2201410020)
Meidiana Insania A.(2201410062)
Lutfiana Tyas M.
(2201410072)
Social factors do not impact directly on
what goes on inside the “black box”.
Social factors have an indirect effect,
influencing the communication learners
engage in and through this rate and
possibly
the
development.
route
of
interlanguage
The study of learner discourse in SLA has
been informed by two rather different goals:
1. There have been attempts to discover how L2
learners acquire the “rules” of discourse that
inform native-speaker language use.
2. A number of researchers have sought to show
how
interaction
development.
shapes
interlanguage
Acquiring Discourse Rules
There are rules or, at least, regularities in the
ways in which native speakers hold conversations.
The acquisition of discourse rules, like the
acquisition of grammatical rules, issystematic,
reflecting both distinct types of errors and
developmental sequences.
THE ROLE OF INPUT & INTERACTION IN L2
ACQUISITION
Theoretical
Position
A
behaviorist
theory
A mentalist
theories
A BEHAVIORIST VIEW treats language
learning as environmentally determined,
controlled from the outside by the stimuli
learners are exposed to and the
reinforcement they receive.
MENTALIST THEORIES emphasize the
importance of the learner’s black box. They
maintain that learners’ brain are especially
equipped to learn language and all that is
need is minimal exposure to input in order to
trigger acquisition.
What is discourse in which learners
participate is in any way different from the
discourse native speaker engage in?
If learner discourse can be shown to have
special properties it is possible that these
contribute to acquisition in some way. It does
indeed have special properties. The native
speakers
modify
their
speech
communicating with children learner.
when
The modifications are evident in both input and
interaction, have been investigated through the
study of foreigner talk.
Two types of foreigner talk can be identified :
1. Ungrammatical
2. Grammatical
Ungrammatical
1. It is socially marked.
Grammatical
1. It is the norm.
2. It is characterized by the deletion of 2. Various types of modification of
certain grammatical features (copula
baseline talk can be identified.
be, modal verbs and articles).
3. It uses the base form of the verb in
3. It is delivered at a slower pace.
place of the past tense form.
4. It uses of special constructions (such 4. The input is simplified.
as no+verb)
5. It is sometimes regularized.
6. Sometimes it consists of elaborated
language use.
We seem to know intuitively how to
modify the way we talk to learners to
make it easier for them to understand.
The results in interactional modifications
as the participants in the discourse
engage in the negotiation of meaning. As a
result of this negotiation both learners
end up correcting their own errors
For Example:
• Hiroko:
a man is uh. drinking c-coffee or tea with
uh the saucer of the uh uh coffee set is
uh in his uh knees.
• Izumi:
in him knee.
• Hiroko:
uh on his knee.
• Izumi:
yeah.
• Hiroko:
oh his knee.
• Izumi:
so sorry, on his knee.
Stephen Krashen’s input hypothesis
Michael Long’s interaction hypothesis
Evelyn Hatch hypothesis
Stephen Krashen’s input
hypothesis
L2 Acquisition takes place when a
learner understands input that contains
grammatical forms that are at ‘i + I’ (i.e.
are a little more advanced than the
current
state
of
the
learner’s
interlanguage). According to Krashen,
then, L2 acquisition depends on
comprehensible input.
Michael Long’s interaction
hypothesis
emphasizes
the
importance
of
comprehensible input but claims that it
is most effective when it is modified
through the negotiation of meaning.
Evelyn Hatch Hypothesis
emphasizes
the
collaborative
endeavours of the learners and their
interlocutors in constructing discourse
and suggests that syntactic structure
can grow out of the process of building
discourse.
THE ROLE OF OUTPUT IN L2
ACQUISITION
We need to consider whether output plays and
part in interlanguage development. Here some
conflicting opinions:
1. Krashen argues that “speaking is the result of
acquisition not its cause”. He claims that the
only way learners can learn from their output
is by treating is as auto-input.
2. Merril Swain has argued that comprehensible
output also plays a part in L2 acquisition. She
suggests a number of specific ways in which
learners can learn from their own output.
SUMMARY
We have considered a number of ways in which discourse might
contribute to L2 acquisition-through the modified input that comes in
foreigner talk, through the input learners obtain from the negotiation of
meaning, through scaffolding, and through comprehensible output. In the
various positions we have examined we find a rich array of metaphors on
offer. In particular, there are metaphors that suggest that L2 acquisition
is a distinctively human and social activity (for example, ‘negotiation’ and
‘collaboration’). The underlying metaphor that informs work on discourse in
SLA, however, remains that of the computer (for example, in the choice
of basic terms like ‘input’ and ‘output’). We shall now look inside the
computer and examine some of the mental mechanisms of L2 acquisition.
THANK YOU