Input Modification Hypothesis Output Hypothesis

repetition
Showing your face (articulation)
Inserting longer pauses (av. pause of a

NS is .25 sec)

Input modification

Intonation / volume change
Less elision
Paraphrasing / circumlocution
Using discourse markers (Right, now….)
Fewer words per clause

to comprehend, it is not sufficient for the teacher to

simplify or modify his / her input. The listener must also be involved in modifying the input through clarification requests and confirmation signals.

Listening is an interactive process, sometimes negotiation is needed (i.e. the learner is not passive as per Krashen)

1983
Age: 18-40
Level: approx. ”intermediate”
2 lectures about Mexico recorded:


informal, but "academic,"

spoken style, intended for an audience of university undergraduates who were NSs of English.
designed for an audience of university NNS students

How do you think they simplified it?

City in 1980 was
ten million
a quarter of a

million
twenty million

conditions: FT (n = 17) or NS (n = 17).

*Subjects were unaware of the purpose of the research or that the two groups were hearing different versions of the lecture

Why?

there were any differences in (1) subjects' comprehension scores, and

(2) subjects' self-reported perceived comprehension of the lecture

What is a t-test?

comprehension score of the FT group was significantly higher than

the average for the group hearing the NS version of the lecture (t = 4.86, df = 32, p < .0005).

Results

input (easier directions created in advance for the task)(sit.1) or

not pre-modified, but learners were encouraged to ask for clarifications during the task (sit. 2)?

Result: Negotiation condition (sit. 2) is more effective – better completion of the task. When students are encouraged to modify the input they start repeating the key words more.

ensure native-like performance. There should be some role of output.

COMPREHENSIBLE OUTPUT is necessary.

Output provides an opportunity for meaningful negotiation – when there is a breakdown in communication, the learner is pushed to use alternative means to get the message across, resulting in modified output

I’d like you to put the cushion on the sofa.

A cushion is like a pad and you put it on the sofa to support your back.

Interactionally modified input condition (n=16):
T: Please put the lampshade on the desk
S: What is a lampshade?
T: A lampshade is placed over a lamp

picture of the apartment and the small pictures of pieces

of furniture. She then read out the words labeling the small pictures and the subjects wrote down each word next to the corresponding picture. The teacher then gave an example of how to write a direction. Each student then wrote 10 directions, one for each small picture. When they were finished, the teacher put the students into pairs and asked them to exchange their directions orally.

of 50 English words and check each word they recognized.

Posttest 1. A picture-matching test was designed to measure the subjects’ ability to recognize the meanings of the target words.
Posttest 2. This test was designed to measure the ability of the subjects to produce the target words orally. The subjects were put in pairs. Each subject was given a matrix picture of an apartment and 10 pictures showing individual pieces of furniture. Subjects were required to make up a direction instructing where they wanted each piece of furniture to be placed in the matrix picture of the apartment.

on:
Comprehension (during task)
Vocabulary recognition
Vocabulary acquisition

Conclusion: Producing new words helps learners

process words more deeply, whether for comprehension or acquisition. Learner-learner interaction creates a better learning condition then Teacher-Learner

Input And Output In The Incidental Acquisition Of Word Meanings. Studies

in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 285-301.
Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output?, System, 26 (2), 175-182.
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.