Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T13:52:20.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comprehensible Output as an Outcome of Linguistic Demands on the Learner

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Teresa Pica ,
Lloyd Holliday ,
Nora Lewis  and
Lynelle Morgenthaler
Teresa Pica
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Lloyd Holliday
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Nora Lewis
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Lynelle Morgenthaler
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In view of the theoretical claim that comprehensible input is not sufficient for successful second language acquisition, but that opportunities for nonnative speakers (NNSs) to produce comprehensible output are also necessary (Swain, 1985), the present study sought to describe how second language learners responded linguistically when native speakers signaled difficulty in understanding them and to compare types and frequencies of the learners' responses in relation to different native-speaker (NS) signal types and different communication tasks.

The NS signals differed in the extent to which they offered nonnative speakers an open-ended request for clarification or a model to repeat or acknowledge. The tasks differed in the degree of control they gave to NSs and NNSs over the preciseness and relative quantity of information needed to carry them out, and were as follows: (a) an “information-gap” task, in which the NNSs drew their own original picture and then described it to the NSs, who had to reproduce the picture solely on the basis of the NNSs' description; (b) a “jigsaw” task, in which the NNSs and NSs were required to reproduce an unseen sequence of pictures by exchanging their own uniquely held portions of the sequence; and (c) a discussion, in which the NNSs and NSs were told to share their views on the language-learning contributions of the other two communication tasks. Each task was carried out by 10 NNS–NS dyads.

Results of the study provided empirical validation for the theoretical construct of comprehensible output and revealed the extent to which its production by NNSs was influenced by the linguistic demands of NS signals of comprehension difficulty and communication tasks. Additional analyses of data indicated that the gender of participants in each dyad played an important role in these results.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 63 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brock, C., Crookes, G., Day, R., & Long, M. (1986). The differential effects of corrective feedback in native speaker-non-native speaker conversation. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 229–236). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Day, R. (Ed.). (1986). Talking to learn. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). “Information gap” tasks: An aid to second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 147–181). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1985). Teacher-pupil interaction in second language development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 69–88). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of non-native speech. Language Learning, 34, 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985a, January). Corrective feedback in NNS/NNS discourse. Paper presented at annual American Association of Applied Linguistics Meeting, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985b). Task variation and NNS/NNS negotiation of meaning. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149–161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1986). Sex differences in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker interactions. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to team (pp. 327–351). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1988). Incorporated repairs in non-native discourse. In Eisenstein, M. (Ed.), Variation in second language acquisition: Empirical approaches. New York: Plenum Publishers Series in Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In Hatch, E. (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1983). Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hatch, E., Flashner, V., & Hunt, L. (1986). In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 5–22). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hawkins, B. (1985). Is “an appropriate response” always so appropriate? In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 162–180). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Holliday, L. (1987). NS-NNS negotiations in spoken interaction to eliminate comprehension difficulties. Unpublished manuscript. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Holliday, L. (1988). Let them talk: A study of native-non-native interaction in conversation. Working papers in educational linguistics, 4, 89–100. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
Itoh, H., & Hatch, E. (1978). Second language acquisition: A case study. In Hatch, E. (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 76–90). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 200–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1981, September). Variation in linguistic input for second language acquisition. Paper presented at the First European-North American Cross-Linguistic Second Language Acquisition Workshop, Lake Arrowhead, CA.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1987a, April). Classroom interaction, participation, and comprehension: Redefining relationships. Paper presented at Twenty-First Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Convention, Miami, FL.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1987b). Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 7, 1–25.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1988a). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS interaction. Language Learning, 37, 471–493.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1988b). Negotiated interaction as an aid to learner output. Language Learning, 37, 471–493.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Doughty, C., & Young, R. (1986). Making input comprehensible: Do interactional modifications help? ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 72, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–758.Google Scholar
Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 200–224). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sato, C. (1986). Conversation and interlanguage development: Rethinking the connection. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 23–48). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1983). Nutritional needs of language learners. In Clarke, M. & Handscombe, J. (Eds.), On TESOL 82 (pp. 175–190). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1986). Three approaches to the study of input. Language Learning, 36, 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence. In Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1982). The comprehensibility of non-native speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 41–52.Google Scholar
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985a). Miscommunication in native/non-native conversation. Language in Society, 14, 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985b). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.Google Scholar
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985c, July). Repair in NNS discourse and the evidence for second language development. Paper presented at annual Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Summer Meeting, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Wagner-Gough, J. (1975). Comparative studies in second language learning. In Hatch, E. (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 76–90). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Wagner-Gough, J., & Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input data in second language studies. Language Learning, 25, 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1978). The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar