Understanding Language Learning Through Second Language

FiGuRe 1.3 U-Shaped Behavior

Source: Republished with permission of Routledge, from S. M. Gass, Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course, 4th ed., 2013, p. 263; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
restructuring of their L2 knowledge led to the correct utterance in Stage 3. Therefore, the phrase “He take” of Stage 2 should be viewed as a positive sign of working out and applying language concepts rather than as a misapplication of rules. An important point here is that research has supported the notion that it takes time for learners to eventually restructure their L2 knowledge in appropriate ways (Gass, 2013; Morgan-Short, Finger, Grey, & Ullman, 2012).
Long’s Interaction hypothesis. According to Long (1983), input comes to the individual from a variety of sources, including others. Individuals make their input “comprehensible” in three ways:

• 
  by simplifying the input, that is, using familiar structures and vocabulary;
  
• 
  by using linguistic and extralinguistic features, that is, familiar structures, background knowledge, gestures; and
  
• 
  by modifying the interactional structure of the conversation.
  

This third element is the basis of Long’s (1981) Interaction Hypothesis, which accounts for ways in which input is modified and contributes to comprehension and acquisition. Long (1983, 1996) maintains that speakers make changes in their language as they interact or “negotiate meaning” with each other. Negotiation of meaning has been characterized as “exchanges between learners and their interlocutors as they attempt to resolve communication breakdown and to work toward mutual comprehension” (Pica, Holliday, Lewis, & Morgenthaler, 1989, p. 65). Speakers negotiate meaning to avoid conversational trouble or to revise language when trouble occurs. Through negotiation of meaning, interactions (that is, between native and non-native speakers or between non-native speakers) are changed and redirected, leading to greater comprehensibility. Further, these negotiations can lead to language development by the learner (Long, 1996). That is, by working toward comprehension, language input is made available for intake, cognitive inspection, and thus acquisition. The following exchange illustrates how a non-native speaker recognizes a new lexical item as a result of negotiating the meaning of the phrase reading glasses:
NS: There’s a pair of reading glasses above the plant.
NNS: A what?
NS: Glasses—reading glasses to see the newspaper?
NNS: Glassi?
NS: You wear them to see with, if you can’t see. Reading glasses.
NNS: Ahh ahh, glasses to read—you say, reading glasses, NS: Yeah.
(Mackey, 1999; as cited in Gass, 2013, p. 337)
What exactly does it mean to negotiate meaning?⁵ Just as in a business negotiation, two parties must participate by challenging, asking questions, and changing their positions. Merely conceding is not full negotiation. In the classroom, this means that both parties in a teacher-student and student-student interaction must seek clarification, check comprehension, and request confirmation that they have understood or are being understood by the other. This process is often difficult to achieve in the classroom, given the traditional roles between teachers and students. Since students are often hesitant to question or counter-question the teacher, negotiation of meaning may not occur often. Although teachers often work to provide comprehensible input through a variety of techniques (visuals, simplified input, mime, etc.), this process does not necessarily inspire or lead to the negotiation of meaning. For this type of interaction to occur, both interlocutors must have equal rights in asking for clarification and adjusting what they say.⁶ Thus Long’s theory implies that learners cannot simply listen to input, but that they must be active conversational participants who interact and negotiate the type of input they receive in order to acquire language.