My position on language learning

Language Learning

In the above example, language forms were received as input, language meaning was understood, processed, and then conveyed as output. Input and output were contextualized in an interaction that allowed for the co-construction of the messages conveyed, and the creation of collaborative dialogue. Although the speakers in question were native speakers of French, I believe that that sort of discourse provides the kind of environment in which language learning takes place.

From Input to Intake
Linguistic input is the spoken or written language available to learners, the language to which they are exposed (Corder, 1967; Gass & Selinker, 2001). Krashen (1982, 1985) holds that exposing language learners to comprehensible input in the target language is sufficient for second language learning to occur. In his view, comprehensible input refers to language received through listening or reading, that is just a bit more difficult or advanced than the learner’s already learned language ability. In Krashen’s definition, the student’s current knowledge is represented by i, and the comprehensible input, or bit of more advanced language is i + 1. Learners are thought to move from one level of understanding to the next with some form of systematicity and logical order. I am not completely comfortable with this hypothesis as I do not know how one would determine what the “+ 1” component of the language learning equation would have to entail. Further, I do not believe that input must necessarily be comprehensible in order for it to be understood or for language learning to take place. However, I agree that the exposing language learners to as much input from the target language is essential for successful language learning.

A person learning in a second language environment regularly comes in contact with real-world contextualized target language use that they do not understand. Even in a foreign language learning environment, students are likely to be exposed to plenty of the target language that is neither comprehensible, nor just a bit beyond their current knowledge. For instance, though his first language was French, my son did not live in a francophone country between the ages of 2 and 14. In ninth grade, however, he went to live with his father in France and attended school there for two years. He spent his school days in class, and his evenings and weekends with friends and family, none of whom English. Initially, all of the French input my son received was incomprehensible, since he did not speak the language anymore, and had never attained more than a toddler’s level of French proficiency to begin with. His classes were all in French. His friends and family spoke French. He watched television and listened to the radio in French. None of the input received by him was comprehensible, yet, within a few short weeks, Mikaël began to try to communicate.

That the input he received was not comprehensible did not prevent my son from learning French. In my experience, his case is not the exception, but the rule. Incomprehensibility does not prevent language from being taught, from being received as input, or from being processed as intake, which is “language that is responded to by the learner” (van Lier, 1996, p. 53) within the context of communicative interaction. In his Interaction Hypothesis, Long (1996) proposed that it is actually when input is incomprehensible that learners attempt to negotiate form and meaning, thereby increasing their knowledge and understanding of the input received. This also helps them understand how to use the target language to create output. These theories and my own observations cause me to believe that, although the receipt of input is the driving force in the language-learning process, that input need not be comprehensible to be beneficial or to be processed as intake. Whether comprehensible or not, however, I feel that the most important factor in language learning is that students be exposed to as much target language input as possible.

To provide them with French language input and hopefully encourage my students to try to understand that input and process it as intake, I encourage them to read newspapers, magazines, and books, to watch television and movies, and to listen to the radio or surf the Internet in French. These activities increase the amount of French that my students are exposed to, and probably increase the variety of that language exposure, as well. I believe that, through repeated exposure to even incomprehensible input, as well as to language that they do understand, my students’ awareness of how French is used and their ability to use it increase. Ignorance of the details of the language does not prohibit understanding of the broader context of the article or interaction they are observing.

Consider language immersion programs, or the kind of true immersion that takes place when people go study or live in countries where they do not speak the local lingua franca, for example. When I went to study in high school in France, I did not speak French. I had been exposed to it as a small child, and when I was in sixth grade we had lived in the south of France for several months. During those trips, I had learned a little bit of French, enough to get by on the playground, in the school cafeteria, and with my classmates and playmates. But I had never had any formal instruction in French, and what French I had learned previously had been stilted, at best, and very colloquial. Between sixth grade and tenth grade, I’d forgotten most everything I had learned, except the words aujourd’hui and bonjour.

So, all I had to work with when I got to France was the massive amount of input I was exposed to and my desire to express myself and assert my identity by interacting with other people. I arrived in France in August of that year, started school in September, and by December, my French proficiency was probably at an Intermediate-high to Advanced-low according to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 1999). My experience learning French as well as that of my son represent two case studies that seem to support Spolsky’s (1989) assertion that the more target language a learner is in contact with and the more of the language he or she produces, the more proficient that learner will become (as cited in Norton, 2000). Our experiences also support the contention that it is, in fact, the incomprehensibility of input that causes students to learn language (Long, 1980, as cited in Gass & Selinker, 2003; Swain, 1985).
Spolsky (1989) holds that there is a difference between the academic, or formal language learning setting and the more natural, or informal environment (as cited in Norton, 2000, pp. 2-3). In schools, it is likely that only the teacher is a fluent speaker of the target language, and that language use in such an environment is controlled and simplified (Spolsky, 1989; Norton, 2000), or what is often referred to as foreigner talk (citation). In the natural setting, normal language is used for communication by fluent speakers in their real-world environment. When learners only receive target language input in the classroom, their language production is likely to be restricted to that required by the narrow confines of that controlled environment. This distinction is important because, when students have the opportunity to use the target language in normal, or simulated real-world settings, they are more likely to be afforded the opportunity to produce meaningful and relevant output that contributes to the interaction at hand. And so, in second- and foreign-language teaching settings, not only is exposure to input compulsory, but also the occasion to produce output.

Output
Output production includes production from simple repetition, or practice of sounds or writing words, to pushing learners to produce language in order to make themselves understood, and convey information “precisely, coherently, and appropriately,” (Swain, 1985, p. 249) which cannot help but increase their fluency and accuracy in the target language.

Swain (1995) goes further in describing the three primary functions of output in the second or foreign language learning process: noticing, hypothesis testing, and conscious reflection. Noticing is said to take place when language learners realize, or notice, what they do not know in the target language, or what they only partially know. When I was learning French in a high school in France, there were two specific things I would say that exemplify the construct of noticing. In Brittany, the winters are long, dark, and rainy. Although I was in boarding school, I spent my weekends at my aunt’s or my grandparents’ house. Whenever I would ask if it were going to rain, my aunt and grandparents would respond by asking me whom I thought was sad. The verb ‘to rain’ is pleuvoir, and ‘to cry’ is pleurer. In the inflected form for “it”, il pleure /ilplˆr/and il pleut /ilplk/, those two phrases sounded the same to me. So, over and over, I would ask, Il va pleurer?, earnestly wondering if he (or it) was going to cry, instead of the correct, Il va pleuvoir? (Is it going to rain?). The seemingly odd responses I received caused me to pay more attention to other people’s speech when they discussed crying, or rain, and after listening for a little while, I noticed the difference, and this prompted me to become aware of my linguistic problems and correct myself. Not only that, but, paying attention to the form and meaning of their responses gave me the information I needed to process that input as intake, and produce appropriate responses within the interaction so that, we were both negotiating for meaning and co-creating dialogue. This cyclical process supported and helped me in my learning.

Output’s function in promoting noticing is also useful in increasing learners’ language awareness, their systematic focus on language use so that the “words, the ‘tools of thought’ as it were, are scrutinized for some reason” (van Lier, 1995, p. 3). Noticing occurs when learners pay attention to input received and that, without it, learning cannot occur (Schmidt, 1990, 1993a, 1993b, 1994). Part of raising language awareness involves the production of output as a hypothesis-testing tool. In that role, speaking or writing allows language learners to test whether or not the forms they think they know are accurate and appropriate. Learners are believed to produce output and then use the feedback, or responses they receive to make changes in that output (Swain, 1995).

The time I spent in school in France was my first substantive exposure to a non-English speaking environment. The school was in a small town in the wilds of Brittany. I was the first non-native French student the school had had since the 1920s or 1930s, when the local communities stopped Breton-only education. I was certainly their first English-speaking student. As such, I was an interesting oddity, and my peers enjoyed trying to engage me in conversation.

While I quickly learned how to communicate effectively in French, certain words and sounds eluded me. For example, to say that something is neat, or cool, French people say, C’est chouette. I eventually understood this phrase, and wanted to use it myself, but was not sure how to pronounce the vowel-filled word chouette. In talking with my friend, Josianne, after class one evening, I tested my new expression. Unfortunately, I was devastated, when Josianne burst out laughing at my insistence that the movie I had seen the night before was cool. When I requested clarification or confirmation from her, she, laughingly but carefully explained that I had told her that the movie in question was chiotte, a slang word for an outhouse or toilet. I was embarrassed, yet extraordinarily grateful that I had tested my hypothesis only on Josianne, and not in class or in talking to one of my teachers! I definitely modified my utterance from then on. Interestingly enough so did Josianne, who would regularly call interesting or cool things ‘toilets’ from that day on.

The final function of output proposed by Swain (1995), is that of the learner’s conscious reflection. In the two instances detailed above, nobody asked me what my hypotheses were, or what I was doing in telling Josianne that I thought the movie was chiotte. Nobody was concerned with whether or not I noticed the difference between Il pleut and Il pleure. However, my attempts at producing the correct forms, and my reflection on the apparently inappropriate responses that I received from my aunt, my grandmother, and Josianne, all gave cause for me to consciously reflect on both my own pronunciation and that of the people around me. That conscious reflection on my erroneous output and on the feedback I received further increased my awareness of how French works, and allowed me to concentrate on producing the appropriate form.

Interaction

People can receive input in complete isolation, for example, by reading a book or newspaper, or watching a television program or movie. Output can also be produced in isolation. However, I believe it unlikely that many language learners would sit alone and speak to themselves in the target language, unless that person is completing a homework task, or something of the sort. Rather, both output and input are probably situated in the context of interaction.

Linguistic interaction is found in our “dealings with the world of events [that] run the gamut from bewildered incomprehension to robot-like automation, with vigilance and skilled performance at different places along the continuum” (van Lier, 1995, p. 50), and where, “language, and language learning, play a key role in organizing our activities in the world” (van Lier, 1995, p. 50). Interactions consist, therefore, of conversations, or reading, listening to the radio, or watching television, receiving linguistic input, and negotiating with that input to determine meaning. In the interaction example that follows, each of the three participants receives linguistic input, negotiates with that input and with each other to determine its meaning, and produces output that is received as input by the others.

C. Quand tu écriras tes mémoires, ça sera un bon chapitre. « Les Mémoires de Christine LeRoy, » tadah!!! Chapitre Premier. Comment je pourrais l’appeler le Chapitre Premier?
E. Il était une fois.
C. Oh non ! Aaahhh !! Personne va le lire, on va dire aahh, aaahh ! Bidon et non, euh, je sais pas, 1961
M. Naissance.
C. Euh, combien d’années après la mort de Jeanne d’Arc ?
(rires)
E. Parce-que tu penses être la nouvelle Jeanne d’Arc des temps modernes ?
C. Ben des fois, j’entends des voix, tu vois.
M. Elle a une mission, elle a une mission.
E. Elle a une mission, oui. Elle sait pas encore laquelle, mais elle a une mission.
(Kerr, 1997, pp. 21-22).

Negotiation.
Negotiation is a particular aspect of interaction that involves learners modifying and restructuring their dialogue in accordance with perceived or actual difficulties in understanding meaning (Pica, 1994). That is, the restructuring of the interaction in order “to make what they say comprehensible to their interlocutors” (Long, 1996, p. 418). Certain key characteristics of negotiation allow the interlocutors to improve their comprehension and the comprehensibility of the exchange, as explained by Long (1980, as cited in Pica, 1994). Strategies of utterance planning and tactics for utterance repair include such things as clarification requests, confirmation checks, and comprehension checks (Long, 1981, as cited in Pica, 1994). In any given interaction, “these features of negotiation portray a process in which a listener requests message clarification [or] confirmation and a speaker follows up these requests, often through repeating, elaborating, or simplifying the original message” (Pica, 1994, p. 497).

A typical clarification request can be found in the following conversational excerpt. Here, M mentions something that C is unsure of, the person whose birthday it was. C asks that M confirm that Valérie is, indeed, the birthday girl, which M corroborates:

M. Ah ben celle dont c’était l’anniversaire aujourd’hui, elle fait très jeune aussi!
C. Valérie?
M. Oui, c’est ça.
(Kerr, 1997, p. 26)

A comprehension check could proceed as in the following example. In this case, M explains why she thinks she will be wrinkled at an early age, saying that members of her family get wrinkled young. C then beings to speak, but is interrupted by E who wants to clarify whether M is saying that wrinkles are hereditary:

M. Moi je serais très vite ridée, très vite. C’est le soleil! Dans ma famille, on est ridé vite.
C. Moi c’est
E. C’est pas héréditaire quand même?
M. Quand tu viens des, des pays. Non, mais quand tu viens des
E. Oui, des pays chaud.
(Kerr, 1997, p. 26)

Taking advantage of the broad possibilities for negotiation within interaction provides speakers the opportunity to participate in negotiation for meaning. Long (1996) defined negotiation for meaning as a process that allows “learners and competent speakers [to] provide and interpret signals of their own and their interlocutor’s perceived comprehension, thus provoking adjustment to linguistic form, conversational structure, message content, or all three, until an acceptable level of understanding is achieved” (p. 418). That is what takes place in the following discussion about mockingbirds and the possible French equivalent:

<3> mais je suis sûre qu’il y en a aux états-unis, c’est quoi? c’est un mockingbird non?
<1> en c’est le mockingbird?
(. . .)
<1> elle imite [les]
<3> [chants des autres non]
<1> les chants des autres [oiseaux?]
<2> [chez] chez nous elle est bavarde la petite, alors ça peut être une autre manière de dire le [même chose]
<3> non, mais euh les mockingbirds imitent vraiment
(. . .)
<1> [tu ne] peux pas savoir si c’est [un ] rossignol?
<2> [ah bon?]
<3> [ouais]
<2> moi je savais [même pas si c’est ]
<3> [un rossignol] c’est
<2> a nightingale
(Lawson, 2003).

Negotiation and negotiation for meaning can be observed in language learner interactions as well as in interactions between language learners and native speakers of their target language (Pica, 1994). The learning opportunities created by negotiation in interaction are why I believe language learning is optimized in a teaching and learning forum where students have the chance to produce authentic, meaningful, relevant, and interesting collaborative dialogue.

Input – Output – Negotiation Cycle
I believe that a cyclical and interdependent relationship exists between input and output. That relationship is embedded in and inextricable from interaction in that the input and output that take place co-create both the interactional context and the language itself. Through their participation in interactions that are grounded in meaningful contexts, learners are exposed to new and varying forms of input or intake, and provided the opportunity for negotiation of new meaning, which is internalized, and then can be attempted as output in the same or future interaction(s), as the end result of this cycle that takes place within interaction (Long, 1996).
This inter-influential co-creation of language and context contributes to “the joint creation of a form, interpretation, stance, action, activity, identity, institution, skill, ideology, emotion, or other culturally meaningful reality” (Jacoby, & Ochs, 1995, 171). This is “where language use and language learning can co-occur. It is language use mediating language learning. It is cognitive activity and it is social activity” (Swain, 2000, p. 97). Co-construction of dialogue in language learning develops as learners become aware of language in use and of its meaning, and focus on that awareness to notice how the target language is used in effective expression and communication. Language learning occurs as a result of the cycle of input and output within interaction that allows the participants to become aware of language use and notice what works best, which then leads to negotiation, that generates more comprehensible, more proficient target language use.

In sum, to learn something new one must first notice it. This noticing is an awareness of its existence, obtained and enhanced by paying attention to it. Paying attention is focusing one’s consciousness, or pointing one’s perceptual powers in the right direction, and making mental ‘energy’ available for processing. Processing involves linking something that is perceived in the outside world to structures (patterns of connections that exist in the mind) (van Lier, 1996, p. 11).

Because these interactions are social in nature, involving other people, and not books or television sets, they are more likely to be related to topics of interest to the language learner. Ideally, these will be real-life, real-world, interactions with speakers of the target language, in which the learner has a vested interest, and is invested in achieving certain specific personal communicative goals. For example, students in a language course on Francophone Africa read news articles, short stories written by African authors, watched movies and television coverage related to different sensitive topics of import in post-colonial Africa today. Throughout those activities, I would hear an occasional sigh or gasp, but the students remained relatively quiet. However, when it came time to discuss the issues and materials with each other, the students seemed to forget language in their rush to express themselves and defend their opinions. The more volatile the topic, and the more opinionated the student, the more likely it was that they would become passionate about the subject matter of the interaction and try harder to speak and express themselves in French. In another course that same semester, a survey course of 18th century French literature, the students rarely spoke, seldom interacted, and, I dare say, did not seem to ever even read the materials unless an assignment was due. Unfortunately, I did not ever notice their French language skills develop. These two contradictory courses seem to exemplify the importance of providing language learners with relevant and interesting authentic interaction. It seems that, when learners reach a point where collaborative, co-created dialogue occurs, they are given reason for further involving and investing themselves in their language production and in the learning process, and are better able to notice the differences between their performance and that of more proficient speakers. This noticing helps the ever-evolving individual interlanguage become closer to target language performance.

The way in which I perceive of language and language learning is of significant influence in my language teaching practice. I believe that language, comprising form, meaning, and use, is best learned through actual or simulated authentic language input, output, and contextualized interaction that is based on authentic language input. This is important because I believe that I can best meet my students’ personal, academic, and professional French-language needs by promoting their use of the language the way that it is actually used by native French speakers. It is logical to me that the best way to provide that opportunity is by showing them how the language is used, the real-world contexts in which it is used, and by assigning tasks that allow them to interact with each other and with native speakers of French, if possible.

Copyright 2005, D. Pensec