Input and interlanguage: a review of the research

Ana BOCANEGRA VALLE Universidad de Cádiz

ABSTRACT

This article reviews the relationship between input and interlanguage development by addressing four main issues: (1) interaction and modifications which lead to pre-modified and interactionally modified input; (2) negative evidence of unaccepted input which shows how interlanguage can benefit from instances of non- comprehension; (3) input negotiation as a resutt of underlying cognitive and social processes which demand awareness and strategic competence; (4) input and its contribution to pragmatie knowtedge development. The large number of works published in the Iast two decades indicates that this is a major area of study within SLA research, at present enriched by significant contributions from psycholinguistics, sociolinguisties, pragmalinguistics, and educational linguistics. More precisely, as many issues remain unexplored and certain hypotheses require further vatidation and additional support, it is in this multidiseiplinary view of acquisition processes and interlanguage development that new perspectives of fruitful research await discovery.

1. INTRODUCTION

The issue of input and its contribution to both first and second/foreign language (SL/FL) development has motivated a good number of studies during ihe last two decades. Corder (1967) was the first author to address the role of input for second language acquisition (SLA). He distinguished between two types of linguistie data leamers were exposed to: data prone to

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 6,129-159. Madrid, 1998. 130 Ana Rocanegra Valle be proeessed (input) and data actually processed (intake) by the human brain. Later on, Stephen Krasben’s Input Hypothesis prornpted inosí empirical research throughout the SOs and 90s in one way or another. With the common aim of pinpointing its exact role in interlanguage (IL) development, input has been at the forefront of te latest works of SLA, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and, more recently, educational linguistics, and pragmalinguistics. The Input Hypothesis is one of the five hypotheses which make up Krashen’s Monitor Theory, initially reported in 1977 and becoming [be central issue of bis work of 1985. According [o Uds hypothesis, the human brain can only process that input which is comprehensible (cornprehensible input); this is to say, [bose Iinguistic data which are understood by [he learner, meaningful, interesting andlor relevant, not grammatieally sequenced and containing samples of linguistic forms in accordance with [he predietable natural order of acquisition (he. structures 1+1). From Ibis time onwards, either comprehensihie input or intake bave been used [o refer to that input which actually serves the purpose of language acquisition or, as Trosborg (1995:68) puts it, “the portion of L2 input which is assimilated and fed into [he interlanguage system”. At that time, research by differen scholars (Wagner-Gough and Hatch, 1975; Larsen-Freeman, 1976; Hatch 1978) already supported [he idea that acquisition was directly related to [he structure and variability of the various forms and functions present in [he inpu[. Moreover, [bat comprehensible input constituted a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for SLA. The publication of tbe volume edited by Gass and Madden in 1985 compiled the results of the ]Oth University of Michigan Conference oiz Applied Linguistics: Language Jnput, Learner< Use and Integration of Language jo Context heid in Ann Arbor (28-30 October 1983) in which the topie of input was, for the first time, [he focal point of a scholarly meeting. The papers selected for the volume departed from the three main areas of research which liad guided most works up to that time 1: (i) [he relationsbip between input and output regarding both quantity and quality; (u) interacíions between native speaker (NS) and nonnative speaker (NNS); and (iii) interactions between nonnative speakers (NNSs), an area beginning lo emerge. In addition to [bese, contributions set four new global issues which dig mío how learners’ IL can benefit from input: (i) input and instructional settings; (ji) interaetion and the negotiation/modification of discourse and phonology; (iii) the relationship of input and output as regards comprehension processes, speech acts, grammar and quantity/quality; and, finally, (iv) theory and methodology. Gass and Madden’s volume has beid major importance in [be field of SLA and its papers bave been for a long time, and still are, obligatory reference to input research. It is here that Swain (1985) puts forward the Input and intertanguage: a review ofihe research 131 concept of comprehensible output to underline tbat not only exposure to input is important but also the production to that input received which, in turn, elicits more input, either direct or indirect. It is also here that Long (1985) enhanees [he role of input modifications and falis back into lis Jnput and Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1980) witb the aid of the well-known deductive argument tbat: if linguistie/conversational adjustments promote input comprehension, and, if comprehensible input promotes acquisition, tíen it is to be accepted that linguistie/conversational adjustments promote acquisition. From the publication of that 1985 volume up to the present, the comprehensible input pointed out by Krasben has developed into a more sophisticated construct of input in whicb quantity and quality (je. modifications or adjustments), and production (i.e. output) are addressed in view of IL and successful language developmen[. How comprehensible input is achieved, what its characteristics are, how it facilitates SLA, what its effects are upon both acquisition and production, how it influences output or vice versa, how it is affected by contexts, tasks or interlocutors; tíese are some of the questions which have prompted the most current studies.

2. THE FRAMEWORK FOR COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT AND INTERLANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

2.1. Interaetion and modification of inpnt

Even though the term has remained, Krashen’s comprehensible input nowadays involves mucí more [han comprehension of relevant, interesting, grammatically-sequenced chunks of language. After Long (1980, 198 la, 1 983a-c, 1985) repeatedly insisted on the value of modifieations to language and disceurse stmcture for suceessful comprehension (Input and Interaction Hypothesis), input studies have turned to the construct of interaction to pin down how input can be made comprehensible to tío learner and, more precisely, how learners can be guaranteed that sucb comprehensible input is actually contributing to their IL. Two main types of interaction are present along tbe language development process: (a) Native speaker-Iearner interactions (in an SL context either inside or outside [he classroom) or teacher-learner (in an FL context). References to this type of iníeraction can be found under [he headings of native speaker- nonnative speaker interaction (NS-NNS interaction) or teacher-learner interaction. The input-oriented language resulúng from such interactions is known as foreigner talk or teacher talk respectively —te latter mainly used when dealing with data collected from the language classroom 2 Outstanding 132 Ana Bocanegra Valle works on this issue are Long (1983a-c). Long and Sato (1983), Crookes and Rulon (1985), Ellis (1985a-b), and, more reeently, Spada and Ligbtbown (1993), Loschky (1994), and Musumeci (1996), among others. (1» Jnteractions between learners inside the classroom eitber in groups or pairs (i.e. dyads). This interaction is known in[he literature as nonnative speaker

- nonnative speaker interaction (NNS-NNS interaction), learner.learner interaction or peer interaction, and tlie language resulting from it peer-tal/c or interlanguage talk. Teresa Pica is one of [he authors who, either on her own, or in cooperation with other scholars, has devoted most of her empirical research [o peer interaction (see References). Other well-known studies include Gass and Varonis (1985, 1986), Varonis and Gass (1985a-b>, or Wong-Fillmore (¡992). Different interactions convey input differences; pre-mod4fied input, and, interactionally ¡nodífled input are, then, the result of the different interactions taking place. Pre-modQied input occurs in NS-NNS or teacher-learner interactions and is characterised by linguistic adjustments (reduced syntactic complexity), and conversational or discourse adjustments (mainly, use of redundant features) ‘~. Interest in pre-modified input dates back as early as 1971 when Ferguson identified certain ungramnwhcality in tbe speech of NS to NNS, speech to which he gaye [he name foreigner talk. From then on, efforts were made towards the identification and classification of those features characterising foreigner talk (Ferguson ¡975; Gajes, 1977, ¡982; Hatch et al., 1978; Henzl, 1979; Artbur et al., ¡980; Long, 1980, 1981a-b, 1983a-c; Snow et al. 1981; Hatch, 1983; Schinke~ Llano, 1983; Wesche and Ready, 1985; Wong-Fillmore, ¡985) as well as towards tbe relationship of such features with those of otber simple codes like mother talk (i.e. mo[herese), child language, pidgin language, or, even, IL itself(Meisel, 1977; Young. 1977; Bickerton, 1979; Hirvonen, 1985). Once linguistic and conversational adjustments were at leasí ini[ially identified, studies tumed to their role in language development. Research has considered this issue “a critical variable of significant iniportance and complexi[y” (Wing, 1987:59), and, as sucb, it has aimed to study how and to what extent such adjustments influence IL (Hamayan and Tucker, 1980; Scarcella and Higa, 1981; Carpenter, 1983; Hatch, 1983; Long and Sato, 1983; Chaudron, 1983, 1986; Hgkansson, 1986; Young and Oougbty, ¡987; Derwing, 1989; Griffiths, 1990; Loschky, 1994; Ellis, 1995). ¡nteractionalty modifled input is achieved when negotiated interaction takes place between speakers and hearers. Negotiation has been defined in a number of ways:

Exchanges beíween learners and [heir interlocutors as they attempt [o resolve cornmunication breakdowns aud to work toward mutualcomprehension. (Pica et al. 1989:65) (Itahcs added) Jnput aná interlanguage: a review ofthe research 133

Conimunication involving L2 learners often leads to problems in understanding and breakdown. Frequently, one or more of te paflicipants—te leamer or te interlocutor— attempts to remedy tbis by engaging in interactional work to secure mutual understanding. (Ellis, 1994:7 ¡6 —italics added)

Negotiation is understood as a joint endeavour (i.e. mutual) in which interlocutors have vested interest in solving núsunderstandings (i.e. breakdowns) for successful communication, no matter how such misunderstandings have been onginated. Two types of negotiation shou¡d be taken into consideration: (a) Negotiation ofform occurs when the form of a language (¡exis,

morpho!ogy, or syntax) breaks down the flow of conversation ~. Form negotiation is mostly found in teacher-learner interactions. As it is the teacher who is interested in drawing te learner’s attention towards formally incorrect and/or inappropriate utterances, form negotiation is known to fulfil a didactic function (Van Lier, 1988). (b) Negotiation of meaning takes place when interlocutors engage themselves in te clarification of words and/or concepts to te satisfaction of

both parties ~. Tbis type of interaction applies to both teacher-learner and peer interactions. Following Van Lier (1988) again, it fufflls a conversational function because, for this case, interest lies on the restoration and/or maintenance of mutual understanding, not on correct/appropriate production. Negotiation of form and negotiation of meaning are interactional routines tbat appear as side-sequences to the main course of conversation and have in common tbe joint effort of botb interlocutors to deal with a communication probtem 6~ They have been conceptualised in an extensive body of research regarding both NS-NNS and NNS-NNS interactions. Most experimental studies agree wi[h tbe findings of Pica et al. (1995, 1996) which prove that a¡tbougb ¡earners are given more, more directed, and more diversified SL data from teachers tan from other learners, it is peer interaction tbat exerts most influence in negotiation. Among other works referred to in the following sections of tbis paper, it is worth noting bere those of Chun et al., 1982; Allwrjgbt, 1984; Pica and Dougbty, 1985a-b; Varonis and Gass, 1985a-b; Long and Poner. 1985; Young and Doughty, 1987; Young, 1988; Pica, 1987, 199¡a-b; Pica et al., 1987; Slimani, 1992; Gass and Varonis, 1994; Loscbky, 1994; Braidi, 1995; or, Foster, 1998. In comparison, little empirical researeh has opposed pre-modified and interactionally modifled input for te sole purpose of finding out which of

them exerts most influence in acquisition and subsequent IL developinent ‘. To this author’s knowíedge, [he most recent studies published to test this issue explicitly are those by Gass and Varonis (1994), Loschky (1994), and FIlis (1995). Tbese antbors agree that pre-modification isa valuable resource for acquisition; however, [he effect of interactional¡y modified input is more 134 Ana Bocanegro Valle likely to be perceived in moment-by-moment comprehension (Loschky, 1994), subsequent task performance (Gass and Varonis, 1994), and vocabulary acquisition (Ellis, 1995). These flndings are encouraging as far as EL contexis and pedagogy are concerned because they suggest tbat pre- modification can provide adequate input in those contex[s “where it is difficult for learners to negotiate understanding —--as in very ¡arge classrooms or classrooms where learners, for cultural reasons, are not predisposed to negotiate” (Eltis, 1995:429). Larlier studies on this particu¡ar issue are Varonis and Gass (1985b), Poner (1986), or, Pica el al. (198?).

2.2. Negative evidence of unaccepted ¡nput

Aware of [he fact [bat more tan just plain comprehension is needed for acquisition, and, that input is made comprehensible to [he learner thanks [o [hose modifications it undergoes throughout a process of nego[ia[ed interaction, Swain (1985) and White (1987) offer teir Comprehensible Output Hypothesis and Incomprehensible Input Iclypothesis respectively to furnisb input studieswi[h new perspectives of research. According to White (1987), it is precisely [he failure [o understand input that leads to acquisition and learning. Incomprehensible input involves comprehension difficulties on [he learners’ part. Such comprebension difficulties, or raiher, insbances of non-understanding (Varonis and Gass, 1985b), are exactly what make te learner realise tat input has tobe modified. S/he. then, makes efforts to produce output (he. pushed output) aiming to elicit sorne son of modification or repair from his/her interlocutor. Learners are given then ample opportunities to make use of tbeir linguistie resources in order lo understand and make themselves undersínod. In so doing. [bey are pushed into making their output more precise, coherent and appropriate (hence, comprehensible output). The reaction of both interlocutors towards communication problenis or language errors is, in fact, [he basis of te dynamics of negotiation routines. The information that learners receive as an indication tat [beir output is no[ correc[ and should be revised has been addressed in a number of ways by different scholars: repair is [he term most widely used by discourse analysts like Kasper (1985); ¡inguists like Farrar (1992) prefer te term negative evidence; and SLA researchers like Loschky (1994), or Lyster and Ranta (1997) make use of te terrns negative feedback or corrective feedback. In addition, [he learners’ response to nega[íve feedback and tbeir attempt to elicit more input by modifying [heir output have developed from Swain’s comprehensible output into the new construc[ of ¿¿pta/ce, and te Comprehensible Ou¿put Hypothesis into a Negotiated Output Ilypothesis, or Pushed Output Hypothesis (Van den Branden, 1997), Input and interlanguage: a review of ¿he research 135

Corrective feedback is said [o be negative because speakers (mainly, targel language speakers like NS anO teachers) provide evidence for incorrecí and/or inaccura[e instances of language, [hus pushing iheir interlocutors (i.e. learners) to self-correetion and/or restora[ion of communication. Positive feedback may also take place along negotiated interac[ions and serves as a confirmation [o [be learner of his/her hypotesis about [he targe[ language being accurate. As Oliver (1995:460) explains, “posi[ive evidence provides a mode¡ of te correc[ form of te target language to [be language learner, in [he form of elíher authentic or modified input”. The body of research which underlies nega[ive/correc[ive feedback- up[ake falís within [he scope of error treatmen[ research and is promp[ed by íhe belief that: (i) non-understanding promotes negotiation; (ji) [hanks [o negotiation, input is reinforced and made more accessible [o te leamer; and, (iii) accessed input facititales acquisition. Incomprehensible input pushes te learner’s output which, in turn, ins[iga[es corrective feedback which is accessed ¿o by ¿he learner’s uptake. According [o ¿bose s[udies conducted 8 corrective or negative feedbaek is betieved [o: - al¡ow [he learner to notice the gap, discrepancy, or mismatch between input and the inconsis[ent instances of [heir IL (Gass and Varonis, 1994; Pica, 1997);

- fos[er targc[-bke speech and erradica[e errors in IL grammar (Un anO Hedgcock, 1996);

- provide informa[ion about wha[ is not a¡lowable in ¿he [arge[ language (Oliver, 1995);

- serve as a reminder of [he correct form whule learners learn [o use fluently what [bey know a]ready (Havranek, 1997);

- play a role in assisting learners to alIenO ¿o anO íncorpora[e tose aspec[s of language not acquired trough positive evidence alone (Oliver, 1995);

- push leamers to produce more comprehensible, anO sociolinguistieally more appropria[e ou[put (Van den Branden, 1997). Oifferent indicators of non-comprehension or inaccuraíe/inappropriaíe form elicit different responses, both feedback anO uptake. Re firs[ at[emp[ o explain anO provide a behaviour model for non-understanding rou[ines can be found in Gass anO Varonis (1985), anO Varonis and Gass (1985a-b). Rese au[hors envisage a Model for Unaccepted Input which s[arts from a Trigger (T) aiming ¿o a¡er[ the hearer, anO an Indicator (1) whicb is tbe hearer’s signal [hat unders[anding has somehow failed. I[ con[inues wi[b a string of Responses (R) and Reac[ion to Responses (RR) —the former showing [ha[ he hearer wishes [o clear up the unaccepted inpul (i.e. s/he wishes to repair input), [he lal[er showing [bat unaccepled inpuí has been cleared up or, in case it has noÉ, ¿bat s/he wishes, once again, Lo clear it up. Nowadays, ¿bese cons[ructs of Trigger, Indicator, and Response, still apply. Upda[ed researeh, however, has managed to iden[ify what feedback 136 Ana Bocanegra Valle and uptake moves exactly consist of (Van den Branden, 1997). wbich ones predominate in form and/or aceuracy contexís (Seedhouse, 1997), anO, moreover, which moves contribute ¿o a grea[er amount and more successful negotiated interaction: teacbers tend [o use recas[s (i.e. repetition of [he utterance minus ¿he error), wben other feedback moves Iike e¡icitation, metalinguis[ic feedback, clarification requests, and repetition, lead ¿o more successful learner-generated repair (Lys[er and Rauta, 1997). O[her relevan[ research is provided by Day e¿ al. (1984), Crookes anO Rulon (1988), Brock el al. (1986), Gass anO Varonis (1989), Pica et al. (1989), Tomasello and Herron (1989), Lightbown and Spada (1990), Schach¿er (1991), Carroll et al. (1992), Carroll aud Swain (1993), DeKeyser (1993), Swain (1993, 1995), Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), Dougbty (1994), Pica (1994b), or Spada and Fróhlich (1995).

2.3. Cognitive aud social proecsses of input negotiation

Studies conducted in ¿he area of psycholinguis¿ic processes of SLA agree tha[ negotia[ion is a general cognitive capacity not specific ¿o language. Sociolinguistic s[udies, bowever, understand ¿bat negotiation is ¿he resul[ of a social process framed by differenl in[erac[ions [akir>gplace. Nego[iation depends for its success upon ¿be learners’ receptive behaviour as well as upon his/her strategic competence. Receptive behaviour has been conceptualised in ¿he li[erature ¿o make reference ¿o ¿he leamers’ conscious apprehension of some par¿icu¡ar form in [he input (je. of SL stimuli). In order lo avoid the use of [he umbrella term consciousness, differen[ erminology backed up by diverse ¿heories has ¡ed ¿o research s¿udies on attention or selective attention (Osborne and Wittrock, 1983; Nagle and Sanders, 1986; Swain and Lapkin, 1994), alertness (Tomlin anO Villa, 1994), consciousness-raising (Rutherford and Sbarwood-Smi[h, 1985), noticing (Schmid[ anO Frota, 1986; Gass, 1988), or, awareness (Schmid[, 1993). Definitions such as [bose br no¿icing (“detecdon plus rehearsal in sbor¿- memory, prior ¿o encoding in Jong-term memory” Robinson, 1995:296), or awareness (“panicular s[ate of ¿he minO in which an individual has undergone a specific subjec¿ive experience of some cogni[ive conten¿ or external stimulus” Tornlin and Villa, 1994:193), among o¿hers, imply ¿bat different measures may apply [o differen[ cognitive experiences: no[icing wi¿hout awareness, higber anO ¡ower ¡evels of awareness, a¿¿entional func[ions (aler¿ness. orientation anO detection); al¡ ¿hese wi¿hin ¿he scope of ¿he individual’s psychologicallcogniúve readiness ¿o inpu¿ processing ~. Curren[ psycholinguistic ¿heory and subsequen¿ researcb have been involved in defining wha¿ sucb receptive behaviour actually consis[s of, and ¡nput ami interlanguage: a review ofthe research 137 wha¿ lis role in SLA is —in short, how pushed ou¿put and up[aking draws [he learners’ atíention in view of successful It developmen¿. Ou[pu[ is discussed as having several functions in SLA. According ¿o Swain (1995) and Swain and Lapkin (1995), output triggers cogni[ive processes which generate new or conso¡ida¿e exis[ing linguis[ic knowledge; it also serves ¿o control and internalise ¡inguis[ic knowledge, and it “forces ¿he leamer ¿o move from te semantic processing prevalent in comprehension to te syntac¿ic processing needed for production” (Swain anO Lapkin, 1995:375). According [o De Bo[ (1996), “outpu¿ clearly serves lo enhance produc[ive knowledge and procedures [o ¿he level of [he receptive knowledge” (p. 551) but, perhaps, its most impor¿ant contribution from a psycho¡inguistic perspec¿ive is [ha[ “it genera[es highly specific input ¿bat tbe language processing sys[em needs ¿o bulíd up a coheren[ set of knowledge” (p. 553). On the otber haud, strategic competence, unders[ood as “[he ability to express oneself in ¿he face of difilculties or limited language knowledge” (Dómyei anO Thurrelí, 1991:16>, is enhanced ¿hrough interactive nego[iation. Bo¿b speakers and lis[eners make use of different s[ra[egies or techniques ¿o communica¿e by modifying ¿heir ou¿pu¿, by instiga[ing inpu¿ adjustments, by elici[ing corrective feedback, anO by uptaking. The lates¿ work in socio¡inguis¿ics assumes that interaction is co- constructive, ¿bis is, thai input modifications are co-constructed through interaction because “¿here is a distributed responsibility among in[erlocu¿ors for ¿he creation of sequen[ial coberence, identities, meanings, and even¿s” (Jacoby and Ochs, 1995:177). Tbe so-called Co-construction Approach includes ¿be hearer in [he speaker’s processes, consequently denying ¿he strategic competence of ¿be individual in favour of a co-constructed ability. It is peer interaction ¿ha[ offers ¡earners “a con[ext for L2 learning tbrough whicb ¿bey can access L2 input, receive feedback, anO modify ¿heir production” (Pica, 1997:60). This is so because ¡earners share similar needs and ¡acks, similar motiva[ions, similar in[eres[s, or, as Wi¡dner-Bassett (¡990) puts it, because it is in peer negotiation where similar discourse worlds co- exisí. S[ra[egic competence is targely determined by te learner’s effective use of communication sirategies (CSs). The f¡rs[ studies concemed with CSs date back Lo Selinker (1972) when ¿bis author introduced ¿he concep¿ of sirategies in IL; and, Tarone et al. (1976), who identified and classified CSs in sucb a way ¿bat it provided a basic ¿axonomy of obliged reference for la[er research. In ¡983, Faerch and Kasper edited a whole vo¡ume coníaining Ihe most relevant papers on ¿he tie¡d a¿ tha[ ime. CSs are agreed ¿o be “a sys[ematic technique emp¡oyed by a speaker ¿o express his/her meaning when faced with sorne difficulty” (Corder, 1981:103), “devices speakers use when ¿bey bave difficutties in verbalizing a mental plan for lack of tinguistic resources” (DÉimyei, 1995:57), and “[he key uni[s in a 138 Ana Bocanegra Valle general description of prob¡em-management in L2 cornmunication” (Dómyei ami Scott, 1997:179). Rey are also known ¿o “clarify intended meaning rather ¿han simply correct linguistie form” (Tarone, 1980:424), “enhance ¿he effectiveness of communication” (Canale, 1983:11), “compensate for breakdowns in communication due ¿o performance variables or ¿o insufficien¿ competence” (Canale anO Swain, 1980:30), as well as ¿o “bridge [he gap be[ween [he communicafive goal anO te means available” (Luján, ¡ 997:427).

Taxonomies for CSs also differ according ¿o trenOs and scbolars ~. 1-lowever, as Bialysíok (1990:61) underlines, it is possible lo identify a core group of strategies across ¿he differen[ proposais because “¿he variety of taxonomies proposed in [he literature differ primarily in termino¡ogy and overalí categorizing principIes rather ¿han in ¿he substance of ¿he specific strategies”. On ¿he one hand, a product-oriented ctassification of CSs was es[ablished by authors like Tarone et al. (1916), Tarone (1917, 1980, 1981). Faerch and Kasper (1983), Paribakht (1985), or Wi¡¡ems (1987). Product- oriented classifications provide CSs with an interactional perspective characterised by a joint effort of interlocu¿ors ¿o agree on meanings anO communication —i.e. te product of strategic competence is linguisticalty focused and airns ¿o acconip¡ish a communicative goal. On ¿he other hand. a further process-oriented classification of CSs was established by Bialystok (1990), and ihe Nijmegen Group (Poulisse, 1981, 1990; 1993; Foulisse e[ al., 1987; Kellerman, 1991; among other works of ¿he group). Here, CSs (of compensatory strategies) are psychologically conceptualised as ¿bey are focused on ¿he cognitive processes underlying CS use. Pas[, presení and future of CS research is summarised in the words below:

Re initial priority —identifying and classifying CSs— has gradual¡y given way ¿o ¿he anaiysis of ¿he mental processes under]ying CS use. At present, ¿he main concern of several leading researcbers is Lo esLablish a process-oriented frarnework of strategic ¡anguage behavior with psycholinguistically vahO process categories. Two particu¡ar¡y notable approaches, ¿he Nijmegen Group’s anO Poulisse’s (1993), attempted to re¡ate strategy use lo culTent rnode¡s of language processing anO speech production. Howevcr, at 11w rnoment both modeis are restriaed ro lexical-compensatory slrategies only, excluding alt olber areas of strategy use. One important direction mr future research is lo extend tbe psycholinguistic approach lo cover other types of strategies (..) Anotber is Lo focus on non-lexica¡ CSs as weI¡, particular¡y on sirategies related to grammatica¡ problenis. (Dérnyci ¿md Scott, 1997:203)

2.4. Pragmatie input and interlanguage pragmaties deve¡opnient

Por sorne time, input has been known ¿o play a rolc in not only ¡inguis¿ic knowledge bu¿ a¡so pragma¿ic knowledge development; ¿he Iatter, however, ¡nput aná interlanguage: a review ofthe research 139 has been neglected until ¿bis decade as a major issue of SLA study. Interlanguage pragmatics (or ILP), “a ra[her marginal concern of second language acquisiúon research (SLA) tus far” according ¿o Kasper (1996:103), is devoted ¿o te study of how Iearners, aud nonnative speakers in general, use and acquire pragmatic competence. Some impor[ant empirical research has been carried ou[ from te late SOs to te presen¿; however, ¡LP is still an incipient area not so much of theory but of research. Ihere are five major issues which concern ILP (Kasper, 1996): (i) pragma[ic universals and [heir role in ¿he acquisition of SL pragmatic knowledge; (u) firs[ language positive and nega[ive pragmatic [ransfer; (iii) [be effec[ of inpu[ and ins[ruction; (iv) individual differences and pragma[ic competence acquisition; and, finally, (y) ¿heories of pragma[ic development. Broad¡y speaking, [bis area of SL study argues [bat bo[h pre-modified and interac[ionally modified input are very valuable ¿o [he learners as far as linguistic da[a are concemed, bu[, as such, do no[ fos[er enough pragmatic knowledge (je. speech ac[s and discourse functions/managemenl), equally necessary for IL developrnen[. AI[hough teacher-learner interaction shows a restricted range of speech acts (Kasper, 1982; Lórseber, 1986), it is known [o provide more pragmatic inpu[ than peer in[eraction (Porter, 1986; Bardovi- Harlig and Hartford, 1996). Pragmatic input can be defined, [ben, as input con[aining differen[ aspec[s of language use or speecb acts, tus extending tbe traditional defini[ion of inpu[ as linguistic data learners are exposed [o, to [ha¿ of data, ei[ber linguistic or pragmatic, learners are exposed ¿o. Unlike comprehensible input research, ILP is rnuch more concemed wit ¿be differences a SL and a PL con[ex¿ entail: ¿be former is more likely to con[ribute ¿o pragma[ic developmen[ simp¡y because pragmatic knowledge is highly sensitive [o context; being much richer both quantitatively anO quali[a[ively, “a SL environment is more likely ¿o provide learners with ¿he diverse and frequent input tey need for pragmatic deveíopment ¿han a FL learning con[ex¿, especially if te instruction is pre-communicative or non- communicative” (Kasper and Scbinid[, 1996:160). How sucb pragmatic inpu[ is afforded, how it can be made comprebensible ¿o ¿he learner, or how i[ relates ¿o tinguistie inpu¿ acquisi[ion processes anO outcomes, are issues wbicb demand future researcb ~

3. THE LATEST RESEARCH

This decade’s findings are discussed be¡ow according [o ¿he main sections of [bis paper ~. The curren[ lines of research regarding input and IL are based on prevíous issues and assume, in general terms, [ha[: for IL development ¿o ¿alce place, (a) input must be comprehensible [o ¿he learner; (b) inpu[ is made 140 Ana Bocanegra Valle comprehensible through a process of interac[ion; (c) by interacting, inpu[ is negotiated, ~his is, adjustmen¿s elicited, anO output pushed; (d) negotiation involves feedback and uptake moves, thanks ¿o which incomprehensible input ¡5 made comprehensible.

3.1. Input and output

The inputloutput controversy s[ill plays a certain role in IL development studies. The latest work on tbis particular issue (DeKeyser and Sokalski, 1996) suppor[s in general íerms [he prediction tha[ inpu[ and output practice contribute ¿o develop comprehension and production skitls respectively; however, both skills are developed separately. DeKeyser and Sokalski’s findings obtained with a subject group of 82 s[uden[s of Spanish as a SL provide evidence [o assume ¿bat [he degree of real effectiveness of one or other prac[ice depends on [he morphosyntactic complexity of a particu¡ar stmc[ure which will favour ¿he developmen[ of one skill over ¿he otber —for ¿heir case, ¿he acquisition of direct object cli[ic pronouns was favoured by inpu[ pracúce whereas the acquisition of verbal conditional forms was more efficiently favoured by output practice. DeKeyser and Soka¡ski’s work replicates two earlier empirical studies who baO c¡aimed ¿bat input practice was no worse [han output practice for te developrnent of production ski¡ls (Van Pat[en anO Cadierno, 1993a-b). Different variables presení in ¿be input have heen found ¿o affect IL development. Works lilce tose of YuLe et al. (1992), P¡ough and Gass (1993), Samuda and Rounds (1993), Foster anO Skehan (1996), Skehan anO Foster (1997), or Mehner[ (1998) argue tha[ the different tasks learners engage in whule interacting as well as differen[ task implementation condi[ions witl influence IL developmen[ in one way or another The two studies by Foster and Skeban inves[igate 40 EFL students performing [bree particular tasks [o conclude ¿bat: (a) [he opportunity ¿o plan leads ¿o much greater fluency, greater complexity and more accuracy (Fos[er and Skehan, ¡996); and, (b), when planned, tasks containing clear inberent s¿ructures foster accuracy whereas tbose tasks which require more on-line processing prioritise coinp¡exity (Skehan anO Foster, 1997). Rese findings bave been confirmed by Mebnert (1998) wbo a¡so reports how fluency and ¡exica¡ densi¿y of speech increase as a function of planning time —¿bis time with German as a FL. Other variables sucb as gender (Pica et al., ¡99 ¡; Scarcella anO Zimmernian, 1998), ethnic (Scarcella, ¡992), or status/expertise differences (Tyler, 1995) secin ¿o be directly related ¿o a communi[y’s social practices and, consequen[ly, input comprehension and IL development will be affected by cross-cultural misco¡nmunications. The most recent study, br example. Input ami interlanguage: a review of the research 141 suggests [bat reading habi[s, in[eractional slyles, education backgrounds, and cultures of ¿he different participants might explain why males get higher scores when [beir knowledge of academie vocabulary in English as an SL is ¿ested (Scarcella and Zimmennan, 1998).

3.2. Input and negotiated interaction

Much of [he researcb during this decade has aimed to fur[her validate ¿he contribu[ion of teacher-learner interac[ion and/or peer interaction. The SOs ¿raced and characterised teacher lalk, furnishing IL research with a good number of studies on teacher-guided interaction. This might explain why ¿lis issue, on its own, has prompled so little researcb during ¿he past years —to ¿bis au[hor’s knowledge, only Musumeci’s (1996) at[emp[ o shed Iigh[ on why ¿be [radi[ional pat[erns of teacher-learner interaction persist. Also during ¿he SOs, ¿he contribution of peer interaction ¿o comprehension and fluency development was widely assumed; but not so its contribution ¿o accuracy wbich, [hroughout [he 90’s, has gained conflic¿ing supporl. Ligh[bown and Spada (1990), Whi[e (199¡), and Wong-Fillmore (1992) agree on ¿he nega[ive effec[ of extensive peer interaction anO little in[eraction with NS or proficien¿ speakers, simply because learners are exposed [o a s[eady die¿ of target language input, even non¿arget-like input, and, consequently production errors are reinforced. Contrary [o [bis, Pica et al.‘s (1995> data revea] that learners’ lE very rarely incorporates other learners errors. Pica’s anO her group’s works support tha[ even if learners are given more, more directed, anO more diversified SL data from [heir na[ive-like in[erlocu[ors, peer in[eraction plays i[s par[. Learners can access comprebensible inpu[ indirec[ly, ¿bis is, by simply observing o[her peers negotiate, and might benefi[ as long as [bey enjoy a similar SL proficiency leve¡ (Pica, 1994a). Even lhough inpu[ supplied through peer in[eraction is lexically, morphologically, and syntacticafly modified, it generates more opportuni[ies for feedback because learners work [oge[her [o supply each o[her wi[h [bose words and phrases [hey need a[ bat time for message meaning completion (Pica e[ al., 1996>; it also offers learners a context in which [bey are able ¿o modify and syn[acticise [heir output, mainly [hat outpu[ pushed in response ¿o signais [hat are open ques[ions and/or clarification requests (Pica et al., 1995). This ac[ua¡ involvement of learners has been recently quantified by Foster (1998), blurring previous research: she sugges[s [ha[ task type or grouping exer[ no overail effect on meaning negotiation, and, moreover, [bat learners are no[ predisposed for ¿he negotiation of meanings wbenever [bey encoun[er gaps in [beir unders[anding (bence, for providing feedback, ele.). ¡42 Ana Bocanegra Valle

In order to ascertain precisely how interaction affec[s subsequent production aud development, unmodified/modified, and pre- modified! interactionally modified input have been examined. Tbree particular studies validate ¿he potential effecí of inleractional inpu[. Gass anO Varonis (1994) found [bat, in NS-NNS interactions, any modified input affected task performance, however, subsequent performance was only affected by ¿bat inpu[ modifleO through interaction. Loschky’s (1994) negotiated interaction group of Japanese as a FL achieved, over non-interactive pre-modified and unmodified groups, the higbest comprehension score and made ¿he greates¿ gains in both vocabulary recognition and sentence structure verification. Finally, Ellis (1995) based bis study on 27 Japanese studen[s of EFL receivíng pre-modified, anO 27 receiving interactiona¡¡y modificO input. Arnong conclusions obtained, ¿wo particu¡ar issues illuminate further research: (1) more words are learnt through interactiona¡ly modified input, bowever, words are faster acquired (i.e. acquisition range is higber) wben input has been previously modified; and, (2) if input is over-modified (i.e. over-elaborated trough lexical density and lengtb of definitions), i[ wilI negatively affect word meaning acquisi[ion.

3.3. Input and negative/corrective feedback

Research on corrective feedback and up¿akes during ¿be past years has agreed [bat ¿he type and distribution of feedback received during negotiations determine how anO bow much learners modify ¿heir output. (Doughty, 1994: Van den Branden, 1997; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Seedhouse, 1997; Lyster, 1998). Probably, ¿be rnos¿ relevant contribution ¿o ¿he issue has been provided by Lys¿er anO Ranta (1997) who iOentified bow feedback and up¿ake moves are distributed in classroom negotiated inteíactions —le. which feedback techniques are ¿he mos¿ anO ¡east used by teacbers, anO which of ¿bose, anO ¿o what extent, elicit learner uptakes more effectively. In his most recent work, Lyster (1998) makes use of ¿he 377 samples of recasts of his previous study anO argues ¿bat feedback moves bave a particular role ¿o fulfil, more precisely, ¿he teachcrs’ frequent Iopic-conlinuation moves following recas¿s are more ¡ikely ¿o draw attention ¿o contcnt ¿han ¿o form. The effectiveness of negative feedback as an instructional aid has been studied by several au¿hors anO with different target items in minO: -¿ng forms and adjective-noun order (Ligbtbown anO Spada, 1990); adverb placement (White, 1991), questions (White eL al., 199¡), conditional tense (Day anO Shapson, 1991), grammatical morphemes (Farrar, 1992>, vocabulary (Ligbtbown. 1992), dative alternalion (Carroll anO Swain, 1993), vaneO syntactic structures (DeKeyser, ¡993). relationship between pedagogy anO Input and interlanguage: a review of the research 143 interaction (Seedhouse, 1997). To ¿his author’s knowledge, ¿he larges[ database used to test ¿he general instructive role of feedback is provided by I-Iavranek (1997) who identified 1700 feedback instances from a sample of 207 EFL ¡earners. As for Lyster and Ranta (1997), recas[s were the mos[ frequen¿ move and [he least likely ¿o lead to developmen[. In addition, expansions facilita[ed recalí, anO self-correction predisposed learners [o master struc[ures. Tbanks ¿o studies such as ¿bese just mentioned, it has been accepted tat feedback makes not only meanings more accessible, but also vocabu¡ary and structures. Noneteless, bow anO bow mucb leamers incorporate corrective inpu[ to [heir it is an issue bardly explored. Resu¡ts reporteO by Oliver (1995) suggest ¿bat feedback will be incorporated in [he IL only if it falís within ¿he seope of ~he individual’s morphosyntactic ability. Similarly, Van den Branden (1997) reveals [hat, (a) feedback-uptake moves have no significant effects on ¿he syntactic complexity nor on the grammatical correctness of learners outpu¿; however, ou[pu¿ quan¿ity is significantly higber, informa[ion provided more essen[iai, and range of vocabu¡ary greater; anO (b) learners modify ¿heir output in relation to te type of feedback ¡eamers receive anO regardless of te person who provides it (i.e. teacher or peer).

3.4. Input and cognitive receptive behav¡ours

The constructs of awareness, no[icing, at[en[ion, e[c., so much highligh¿ed in te late 80s in teoretical ¿erms, have been [he object of sorne experimental research tbroughou[ ¿his decade. Results, however, remain simplistic because ¿bey do not pin down what particular aspects of IL developmen¿, if any, are affec¿ed by sucb behaviours; an exception is Nobuyoshi anO Ellis (1993) as laler discussed. The issue of whe[her i¿ is input comprehension or output produc[ion tba[ draws ¿be learners’ attention has promp[ed several studies. On attempting to comprebeud meanings encoded with rela[ive clauses (Dougb[y, 1991), pre- and pos¿-modifiers (Pica, 1 994b), or ¡ocatives (Loschky, 1994), learners attention focuses on form. However, evidence tha¿ outpu¿ also serves the purpose of drawing a[¿ention ¿o bo¿h clarity anO complexity of struc¿ures has been provided by o¿ber au[hors (Gass anO Varonis, 1994; Pica, 1994b; Pica elal.. ¡991, 1995, 1996). S[udies like those by Scbmid¿ (1990, 1993. 1995), Robinson (1995, 1997), or Leow (1997) claim [bat input awareness bolOs facilitative effects for IL bebaviour; however, ¿o wbat ex[ent such facili[ative effec¿s contribu[e ¿o actual comprehension anO subsequent IL deve¡opmen[ is stil¡ unknown. One of ¿he laLest s¿udies (Leow, ¡997) addresses ¿he issue, bo¿h qualitatively anO quantita¿ive¡y. anO concludes tba[ processing and accuracy vary 144 Ana Bocanegra Valle according ¿o differen¿ levels of awareness obtained through recognition anO production tasks. Before him, Robinson (1995) baO already claimed tha[ i[ was ¿ask ¿ype tha¿ determined processing differences. Leow’s measures, on ¿he con[rary, show that such differences derive from Oifferent leveis of awareness anO do exis[ regardless of task types. O[her works underline ¿he importance of enhanced or bighuighted inpu¿ in order ¿o draw ¿he learners’ attention ¿o specific forms (Doughty, 1991; Whi[e et al. ¡991, Long, ¡991) anO structures (Van Patten, ¡990, Alanen, 1995), because it is precisely with awareness ¿o form, anO not ¿o meaning, wben SLA is facililated (Leeman e[ al., 1995). lnvolvement in eliciling feedback does no guarantee comprehension (Bilis et al., 1994), instead, i¿ [riggers men[al processes whicb may force ¡earners into a more syntactic processing modo (Swain anO Lapkin, 1995): as learners produce, ¿hoy become aware of gaps in ¿heir Iinguistic knowtedge anO engage in a grammatical analysis wbich extonds firs¿ language knowledge ¿o SL contex¿s, anO SL knowledge ¿o new targe[-language contexts. In rela[ion ¿o ¿bis, Lin and Hedgcock (1996) compared conversational data obtained from four welt-educated low-proficiency Chinese immigran¿s ¿o Spain on ¿he one hand, and four high-proficiency Chineso university students with extensivo formal training in Spanisb. Because awareness made ¿he !at¿er incorporate correc[ions more successfully ¿han ¿be fornier, wbo manifestod ¡itt¡e sensitivi[y ¿o feedback, results sugges¿ ¿bat the internalisation of feodback depends upon an individual’s metalingual receptivity. l[ has also been assumed [bat bo[b fon anO nieaning focused interactions, rather ¿han unfocused interac¿ions, are more likely ¿o affcc[ IL production. ¡n a small-scale s¿udy wi¿b six participants, Nobuyoshi and E¡Iis (1993) explici[ly studied ¿his issue anO found ¿bat whon interaction was firsí focused on a specific linguistic aspect (hero, [be past tenso), it leO ¿o sustained improvement anO more accurato performance ovor time oven thougb ¡ator interaction was not focused on fon.

3.4. Input and strategic competenee

As was men[ioned earlior, ¿he most reievant contribution ¿o strategic competence Oeveíopment during ¿he past years has been ¿be work conductod by Bialystok (1990), Poulisse (1990, ¡993) anO ¿he Nijmegen Group; however, only texica¡ strategies have been addressed anO retated lo current models of ¡anguage processing anO production. This fact i¡luminates futuro research on non-lexical process-oriented compensatory s[rategies. One of ¿he latest studies on strategy use has beon conducíed by Luján (1997) witb Eng¡isb Iearners of Spanisb as a FL. Tbis autbor assumes ¿he cognitive nature of CSs anO shods Iight oven ¿be circumsíances whicb Input ami interlanguage: a review of Me research 145 determine compensatory s[ra[egy use. Her findings show ¿bat different tasks imply different situalional factors, and i[ is precisely tese situational factors, not individual differences falling within affec[ive or cognitive variables, which determine strategy choice. Nowadays, i[ is widely accepted [bat CSs form a vi[al condition for IL Oevelopment, and, as such, [bey are worth fostering. In 1995, Dórnyei Irained sorne EFL students in Hungary in [liree particular s[ra[egies (i.e. topic avoidance and replacement, circumlocu[ion, anO using fillers and hesi[ation devices). Besides [he general favourable attitude of [bose involved, descrip[ive statistics suggested tha[ be quality and quanfi[y of s[ralegy use were improved, ¿bat it was of benefit ¿o bot high and Iow proficient learners, and, final¡y, [bat sorne CSs (je. fillers) are more related to fluency ¿han o¿hers. Dórnyei’s expenmen[al conditions do not allow for goneralisations bu[ his study lays [he founda[ions for future promising language teaching/learning research.

3.6. Input and interlanguage pragmaties

ILP, altbough an increasingly prominen[ field of in[eres[, is still an incipien[ area of study wi[hin SLA research. Slarting from those findings on Iinguistic input anO SL/FL development, much at[ention is a[ present being paid Lo ¿he ways in which ¿he pragmatic, in comparison ¿o ¿he linguis[ic, aspects of IL are deve¡oped (Kasper anO Schmidt, 1996). Unlilce SLA (i.e. morpbosyntax), [here is no critical period for [he development of pragma[ic bebaviour; nor does ¿bere exist an order of acquisition. These two facts might imply [bat not alí ¿be processing mechanisms identified in SLA are imp¡icated in LP. Like SLA, in[rlnsic mo[iva~on becomes more effec[ive ¿han exlnnsic mo[ivation. Cross-Iinguistic influence also oecurs at [he level of pragma[ic knowledge; however, ¿he conditions which determine actual transfer are s[ill unknown. Exploring how EFL Japanese s[udents transfer five Japanese reques[ sirategies ¿o [he corresponding English reques[ contexís, Takahashi (1996) maintains [hat transferabili[y does not depend on te proftciency level of [be participan[s bu[ on [he pragmatics (hero, politeness anO conventionali[y) encoded in each particular strategy as well as on te degree of imposifion each request implies. These language-specific implica¿ions baO already led an earlier study (Robinson, 1992) ¿o conclude [ha[ when in[ercultural miscommunication surfaces, it malces leamers refrain from incorporating te speech conven[ions of [he target language. As for linguis[ic input processing, comprebension precedes pragma[ic inpu[ processing (Scbmidt, 1993), and in[erac[ion plays a crucial role for ¿he provision of pragma¿ic comprebensible input (Bardovi-1-Iarlig and Hartford, ¡990, ¡993, 1996). 146 Ana Bocanegra Valle

Tbe teachabili[y of pragmatic pat[ems has probably been ¿be most popular issue addressed [o date. With English as target tanguage. comp¡iments bave been studied by Bi¡lmyer (1990); apologising acts bayo prompted ¿he works of Ohístain anO Cohen (1990), Trosborg (1995), anO Maeshiba e[ al. (1996); Robinson (1992) has addressed bow refusa¡ s[rategies are noticed; conversa[ional implica[ures bayo been studied by Bou[on (1994), anO Kubota (1995). Finally, requesting, has a¡so been analysed, attougb witb Japanese (Morosawa, 1990), anO Chinese (Zhang, 1995) as target ¡anguages. Other findings related ¿o SLA provide ILP witb new perspectives of research. Kerekes (1992) found ¿bat proficiency anO gender influenced ¿be perception of sympatby and advice pattems —he. female and high-proficiency ¡earners were more successful. And, wbereas House (1996) praises ¿he con[ribution of awareness [o pragmatio f¡uency Oevelopment (bence, metapragmatíc awareness), LoCastro (1997) reports ¿bat her Japanese subject group, altough fully aware, does not easily overcome lis linÉtaLions lo convoy poli~eness in English. Whether alí SLA findings can be extended ¿o ¡LP is no[ clear, but, at this stage, i[ would be wise not ¿o overlook twen¿y years of SLA researcb and trace SLA contributions for ¿he purpose of increasing [be knowledge of how IL is favoured anO successfully developed.

4. CONCLUSION

The construct of input anO how it re¡a¿es ¿o IL developmen¿ has been ¿be cornerstone of much research since Krashen (1977) raised ¿he issue of comprehensible inpu¿ for ¿he firs[ time. lo [be beginning, scholars’ in¿erest focused on the ana¡ysis of ¿be characteris[ics of input aiming ¿o Ois¿inguisb ¿bat input which was comprehensible from that ono wliich was foL. Later on, incomprehensible inpu[ was found Lo be of equal. or even more, importance ¿o It development ¿han comprehensible input. Thus, new studies were devoted ¿o ¿he analysis of ¿bose conditions which facilitated ¿be provision of instances of non-understanding and fostered negotiation in viow of successfu¡ communication. Data provided evidence ¿o assumo ¿bat, in such conditions cl non-comprebension, interlocu¿ors were pusbed ¿o produce. anO ibe resulting product (i.e. pusbed output) bocame anothor re¡evant point uf referonce for researcb, ei[ber on jis own or in relation ¿o IL deve¡oprnont. At prescn[, interest in input charactensties anO interaction seems Lo hayo faded away in favour of a rnultidisciplinary perspectivo of It. studies. Input and IL Oevelopment has become a ferti¡e source of insight lo otber disciplines: psycho¡inguistics a¿¿emp¿s ¿o identify ¿he different cognitive procosses underlying negotiated interaction; soeioiingLiistics is concomed with ¿he social proeesses whicb prompt human interaction and mutual negotiation: Input ami interlanguage: a review of¡he research 147 educational linguistics aims [o op[imise ínstruc~onal con[exts; and, finally, pragmalinguisties refines te cons¿ruct of inpu¿ with pragmaúc knowledge and IL pragmatic development Re following diagram recovers te references (in brackets) of alí [hose works cited [hroughout ¿his papen It can be observed thaI research [hroughout te 90s rests on previous isgues bu[ looks ahead hand in hand wit psycholinguis[ics and LP mainly. On te one hand, pragmalic input and instructed input researcb constítu[e a promising area of study —in fac[, if scholars assume [ha[ inpul includes bot language data and language use, only a percentage of issues have besen addressed. On te otber hand, [be identification of cogni[ive mechanisms of comprehension and information processing working at different levels of awareness anO 1mw ¿bey fosíer or hinder subsequent compe[ence is a fleid jusí emerging. These anO other queslions furnisb ¿he field of SLA wi[h more perspectives of fruitful research for te coming years.

NOTES

Por references and a review of ihese three main areas of researeh before 1985, see Larsen-Freensan (1985), the first state-of-the-art paper on input in SLA. 2 The fact that most empirical input studies have been conducted in a SL contexí makes the distinction of foreigner talk and teacher talk confusing for scholars working with PL data. For SL research the teacher is always considered to be a native speaker, hence NS-NNS interaction, and, to this author’s knowledge, no study taking into acconus dic variable teacher nativisrn-nonnativism has been carried out. 3 A comprehensive raxonomy of linguistie anO conversarional adjustmenrs to NNSs can be found lo Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991:125-6). 4 “Teacher: What did he do nexC; Student: [-le breaked bis leg; Teacher: Yes, that’s

right. bol. breaked, breaked, is that correct, breaked?; Student: Uhm ... broke!; Teacher: Broke, righ¡” (Van den Branden, 1997:592).

“NNS: There’s Ihis thing in ihe waIl, uhin ... a ...; NS: A thing? You mean a safe?; NNS: Yeah a safe, and ¡he thief opens the safe” (Van den Branden, ¡997:596). 6 There also exists a Negotiation of conteal (also, con¡ent negotiation) which is pronipted by Ihe desire of interlocutors lo clarify or elidí content inforniation. This is ibe type of negotiation thai eharacterises NS-NS in¡eractions or very proficiení learners outside a classroom contexí. Here, no frequent form/rneaning breakdowns halt or delay tbe normal dow of conversation. Both speakers anO bearers are pushed ro provide additional information as ¡he conversation moves on buí they are never pushed to restore or modify understanding or formally iocorrecr utíerances. Example: “Speaker A: AnO ¡ben sbe gol off lier bike; Speaker B: Why diO she ge¡ off her bike?; Speaker A: Because she baO a fiat tire” (Van den Branden, 1997:594). Illustrative examples of pre-modified anO interactionafly modified input for similar situadons are provided by Luis (1995). ~ Por ciassitiea¡ions, Oefinilions, anO a good number of exampies of corrective feedback anO learner uptakes, see Lyster and Ranta (1997) as weII as Van den Branden (1997). Por a model of the role of atteníion aud defining characteristies of atiention, awareness, artO consciousness in relation ¡o SLA, see Tomlin and Villa (1994). lO The Iatest review anide on comniunication sirategies (Dórnyei and Scott, 1997) describes ¡he major ¡axonomies anO provides a good number of examples for eacb case. 148 Ana Bocanegra Valle

Por a good review of topies anO methods in siudies of pragmatie deve¡opment as weB as relevaní issues within interlanguage pragmatics, see Kasper (1996), anO the special issue of tbejournalSradies ¿a Second LanguageAcqulsWon, vol. 19, no. 2(1996). 2 This author wishes to siate that ibis inventory could be improved Uy other relevaní exísting siudies. Her sote unawareness of sucá existence Ls the cause of their absetíce. Whatever errors remain on tbe interpíetation of ihe purpose anO conclusions of tbe usted studies are ha own Departamento de Inglés Facultad de Ciencias Náuticas Campus Universitario 11510 Puerto Rea¡ Cádiz. Spain e-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES

Alanen, R. (1995). Inpu¿ enhaeement and rule presentation in second language aequisition. In Schmidt, It (cd.): 259-302. (¡) Alatis, JE. (ed.). (1980). Current Issues la Bilingual Educativa. Washington, OC: Georgetown University Press. (2)

— (ed.). (1994). GURT 1993. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. (3) Aljaafreh, A., and Lantolf, JI’. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation anO second language learning in ¿he zone of proxinial development. Modern Language Journal 78: 465-83. (4) Allwright, RL. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language leaming. Applied Linguistics 5:156-71. (5) Andersen, R.W. (cd.). (1983). Pidginization ami Creolization os Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. (6) Andersorí, C., atíd Beretta, A. (eds.). (t992). Evaluating Second Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (7) Arthur, B., Weiner, M., Culver, J., Young, L., and Thomas, O. (t980). The register of impersona¡ discourse ¿o foreigners: verbal adjustments [o foreign accení. In Larsen-Freeman, D.E. (ed.): 111-24. (8) Bardovi-Harlig, K., anO Hartford, 8.8. (1990). Congruence in native and nonnaLive conversations: status balance in ihe academic advising session. Language Learning 40: 467-501. (9)

—, anO Hartford, 8.8. (1993). Learning ¿he rules of academic ta¡k: a longitudinal study of pragmatie development. Studies in Second Lan guage Acquisition ¡5: 229-304. (10)

—‘ anO Hartford, 8.8. (1996). Input in an institutional setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 171-88. (II) Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication Strategies —A Psychological Analysis of Secoud-Language Use. Oxford: Basil Blackwe¡l. (t2) Bickerton, D. (1979). Beginnings. In Hill, 1<. (cd.): 1-22. (13) Input and interlanguage: a review of the research 149

Billmyer, K. (1990). ‘1 reatly like your ¡ifestyle’: ESL ¡eamers leaming how to compliment. Pean Working Papers ja Educational Linguisties 6: 31-48. (14) Bouton, L.F. (1994). Conversational implicature in ¿he second language: leamed slowty when nol delibcratety taughí. Ivurnal ofPragmatics 22: 157-67. (15) Braidi, SM. (1995). Reconsidering ¿be ro¡e of interaction anO input in second language acquisition. Language Learning 45: 141-75. (16) Brock, C., Crookes, ci., Day, R., aud Long, M. (1986). Re differential effects of dorrective feedback ir native speaker-nonnative speaker conversation. In Day, R. (ed.): 229-36. (17) Brown, H.D., Yorio, C., anO Crymes, R. (cds.). (1977). On TESOL 7% Washington: TESOL. (18) Canate, M. (1983). From eommunicalive competenee ¿o communicative ¡anguage pedagogy. In Richards, J.C., anO Selimidt, R.W. (eds.): 2-27. (19) —‘ anO Swain, M. (1980). TheoreLieal bases of cornmunicative approaches ¿o second ¡anguage ¿eaching anO testing. AppliedLinguistics 1:1-47. (20) Carpenter, C. (1983). ‘Foreigner Tatk’ ir university office-hour appointments. In Wolfson, N., and .hidd, E. (eds.>: 184-94. (2]> Carroll, 5., Roberge, Y., anO Swain, M. (1992). The role of feedback in adu¡t second language acquisition: error correction anO morphological generalizations. Applied Psvcholinguisrics t3: 173-98. (22)

—‘ and Swain, M. (1993). Explicit anO imptici¿ negative feedback: An empirical study of ¿be learning of linguistie generalizations. Studies ¡a Second Longuage Acquisition 15: 357-86. (23) Chaudron, C. (1983). Foreigner talk in the classroom -an aid ¿o tearning? In Seliger, U., and Long, M. (eds.): 127-43. (24) (1986). The ro¡e of simp¡ified input ir ctassroom language. In Kasper, O. (ed.): 99-110. (25) Chur, A., Day, R., Cbenoweth, A., anO Luppescu, S. (1982). Errors, interaction and correction: A study of native-nonnative conversations. TESOL Quarterly 16: 537-47. (26) Clarke, M, anO Handscombe, i. (eds.). (1983). On rESOL ‘82: PacWc Perspectives on Language Learning ciad Teaching. Washington, DC: TESOL. (27) Cook, O., anO Seidíhofer, B. (eds.). (1995). Principie ami Practice in Applied Linguisties: Studies lii honour of Henry O. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (28) Corder, SP. (1967). Tbe significance of learner’s errors. ¡RAL 5:161-70. (29) —. (t981). ErrorAnalysis and Incerlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (30) —‘ anO Rou¡e¿, E. (eds.). (1977). The Notions of Simpl¡fication, Interlanguages ciad Piágias, ciad their Relacion to Secoad Language Pedagogy. Genéve: Droz. (31) Crookes, O., anO Gass, 5. (cds.). (1993). Tas/es from a pedagogical perspective: integraíing theory andpraccice. C¡evedon, Avon: Mu¡tilingual Matters. (32)

—‘ anO Rulon, K. (1985). Incorporation of correcrive feedback ¡a native speak’er/non-native speak-er con versatian

—‘ and Rulon, K. (1988). Topic continuatior anO corrective feedback ir native- nonnative Oiseourse. Longuage Learaiag 34: 19-45. (34) 150 Ana Bocanegra Valle

Day, R.R. (ed.). (1986). Tallcing to Leara. Coaversation ja Secoad Language Acqu¡sit¡on. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. (35) Cherioweth, N.A., Chun, A.E., anO Luppescu, S. (1984). Corrective feedback in native-nonnative discourse. Loaguage Leara¡ag 34: 19-45. (36) ané Shapson, 5. (1991). Lntegrating formal aná func¿ional approaches ¿o language teaching in French immersion: an experimental study. Luaguage Learning 41: 25-58. (37) De Bo¿, K. (1996). Ttie psycholinguistics of ¿he Output Hypothesis. Language Leara¡ag 46: 529-55. (38) Coste, D., Ginsberg, II., ¿md Kramsch, C. (edsú. (1991). Foreiga Language Research ¡a cross-culturalperspeddve. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (39) DeKeyser, RA’1. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge anO oral proficiency. Modera Longuage ivurnal 77: 501-14. (40) anO Soka¡ski, K.J. (1996). The differential role of comprohension anO production practice. Lan guage Learning 46: 613-42. (41> Derwing, T. (1989). Information type and its relation Lo nonnative speaker comprehension. Loaguage Learning 39: 157-72. (42) Díaz, L, and Pérez, & (eds.). (1997). V¡ews on Me Acquisftion and Use of a Second Language. Proceed¡ags of Em-os/a 7. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeo Fabra. (43) Dórnyei, Z. (1995). On ¿he teachabili¿y of comniunication strategies. TESOL Quarterly 29: 55-85. (44) and Scott, M.L. (1997). Communication strategies in a secoad language: definitions anO Laxonomies. Longuage Learaing 47:173-210. (45) and Thurrell, S. (1991). Strategic competence anO how Lo teach it. ELTJouraal 45: 16-23. (46) Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does rnake a difference: evidence from an empirical study of second ¡anguage re¡ativization. Stud¡es ¡a Secoad LoaguageAcqu¡s¡t¡oa 13: 43 1-69. (47)

- (1994). Finetunning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. In Alatis, J. (ed.): 96-108. (48) Elsenstein, MR. (cd.). (1989). The Dynamic laterlanguage. New York: P¡enuni Press. (49) PlUs, R. (1985a). Uadersraading Secoad Language Acquisiñoa. Oxford: Oxford University Press (50)

- (1 985b). Teacher-pupil interaction in second language deve¡opment. tn Gass, SM, and Madden, C.C. (eds.): 69-85. (51) (¡994). TIte Studv of Secoad Loaguage Acquis¡t¡on. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (52) (1995). ModificO oral input anO ¿he acquisition of word meanings. Appl¡ed L¡ngu¡st¡cs 16: 409-41. (53) Tanaka, Y., and Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension and L2 vocabulary acquisition. Loaguage Learning 44: 449-91. (54) Paerch, C., anO Kasper, 0. (1983). P¡ans anO strategies in foreign ¡anguage communica[ion. In Faerch, C., and Kasper, 0. (eds.): 20t0. (55) and Kasper, 0. (eds.). (¡983). Strateg¡es ¡a Interlanguage Cornmanicatioa. NY: Longman. (56) lapul ciad ¡ate ríangucige: a rev¡ew of tite research 151

—‘ anO Kasper, O. (eOsú. (1987). Introspect¡on ¡a Secoad Laaguage Research. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. (57) Farrar, M. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Developmental Psychology 28: 221-26. (58) Ferguson, CA. (1971). Absence of copula and ¿he notion of simplicity: A study of norma¡ speecb. baby tatk, foreigner talk, ¿md pidgins. In Hymes, D. (cd.): 141 -50. (59) —. (1975). Towards a characterization of Englisb foreigner Lalk. Aathropolog¡ccil L¡nguistics 17: 1-14. (60) Foster, P. (1998). A ctassroom perspective on ¿be negotiation of meaning. Applied L¡agu¡stics 19: 1-23. (61)

—‘ and Skeban, P. (1996). The influence of planning anO task type on second ¡anguage performance. Studies ¡a Secoad Language Acquisit¡on 18: 299-323. (62) Freed, B. (cd.). (1991). Foreiga Loaguage Acqu¡s¡t¡on Research ciad tIte Clcissroom. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heatb. (63) Gaies, S.J. (1977). Ttie nature of linguistic input in formal second language ¡earning. In Brown, H.D. c¿ al. (eds.): 204-12. (64) (1982). Native speakcr-nonnative speaker interaction among academie peers. Stud¡es ¡a Secoad Longuage Acqu¡s¡tion 5: 74-82. (65) Oass, SM. (¡988). Inícgrating research arcas: A framcwork for second language studies. Appl¡edL¡agu¡st¡cs. 9:198-217. (66)

—‘ anO Madden, CG. (eds.). (1985). Iaput ¡a Secoad Language Acqu¡s¡t¡oa. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury Housc. (67) and Neu, J. (cds.). (1996). Speech Acts across Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (68) anO Se¡inkcr, L. (eds.). (1992). Langucige Transfer ¡a Language Learniag. Amsterdam: Jotms Benjamins. (69)

—‘ anO Varonis, E.M. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of mcaning. In Gass, SM, and Madden, CG. (eds.): 149-61. (70) —‘ anO Varonis, F.M. (1986). Sex differcnccs in NNSINNS interactions. tn Day. R.R. (cd.): 327-451. (71) and Varonis, E.M. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnalive discourse. In Elsenstein, MR. (cd.): 71-86. (72)

—‘ and Varonis, EM. (1994). Input, interaction, anO second tanguage production. Stud¡es ¡a Secoad Language Acqu¡s¡t¡oa 16: 283-302. (73) Griffiths, R. (1990). Speech rate and NNS comprehension: a preliminary study in time-benefit analysis. Loaguage Leara¡ag 40: 311-36. (74) H~kansson, 0. (1986). Quantitative aspects of teacher talk. In Kasper. 0. (cd.): 83- 98. (75) Hamayan, E.V, and Tucker, GR. (1980). Language input in ¿be bilingual classroom anO its rclationship ¿o second language achievcment. TESOL Quarterly 14: 453- 68. (76) Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In Hatch, E.(eO.): 401-35 (77) (cd.). (1978). Secoad Language Acqu¡s¡t¡on: a Book of Readiags. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. (78) 152 Ana Bocanegra Valle

—. (1983). Simplified inpu¿ anO second language acquisition. In Andersen, It (cd.): 64-86. (79)

—‘ Shapira, R., and Wagner-Gough, J. (1978). Poreigner taIk Oiscourse. ITt Rev¡ew of Appl¡ed L¡agu¡stics 39/40: 39-60. (80) Havranck, 0. (1997). Corrective feedback revisiLed. ¡n Díaz, L., aud Pérez, C. (eds.): 4t7-26. (81) Henzt, VM. (¿979). Forcigner talk la te d¡assroom. IRAL 17: 159-67. (82) Hill, K. (cd.). (1979). TIte Geaes¡s ofLanguage. Ann Arbor: Karoma. (83) Hirvonen, T. (1985). Children’s foreigner ta¡k: peer talk in p¡ay context. In Gass, SM., and Madden, C.G. (eds.): 137-48. (84) Housc, J. (1996). Dcveloping pragmatid fluency in English as a foreign language: rou¿ines and metapragmatid awareness. Siudies ¡a Seconá Language Acqu¡sit¡oa 18: 225-52. (85) Hymes, D. (cd.). (1971). Pidgia¡zat¡on aad Creolization of Languages. New York. Cambridge University Press.(86) Jacoby, 5., and Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: an introduction. Rc~search oa Lía gacige aad Social Jateraction 28: 171-83. (87) Kaspcr, 0. (1982). Teaching-induced aspeas of interlanguage discoursc. Stucfles ¿u Secoad Laaguage Acquis¡t¡on 4: 99- t ¡3. (88) —- (1985). Repair in foreign ¡anguage Iearning. Stud¡es ¡a Seconá Laa~uagc Acqu¡s¡t¡oa 7:200-15. (89)

—. (cd.). (1986). Learn¡ng, Teach¡ng ciad Comnzun¡cat¡oa ¡a ¡he bore¡ga Language Classroom. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. (90)

—. (cd.). (1992). Pragmaties of Japaaese as Nafive aad Target Language. t-lonolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching ¿md Curriculum Center. (91)

—. (cd.). (¡995). Pragmat¡cs of Chiaese as Native and Foreiga Language. Honolu¡u, HI: University of Hawai’i aL Manon, Secono Language Teaching anO Curriculurn Center. (92) (¡996). The development of pragmatic competenee. In Kellerrnan, E. ct al. (eds.): ¡03-20. (93)

—, and Schmidt, R. (¡996). Developmental issues in interlanguage prag’natics. S¡ud¡es ¡a SecoadLoaguageAcqu¡s¡t¡oa 18: ¡49-70. (94) Kellerman, E. (1991). Compcnsatory siralegies lis second lan2uaee researeh: a critique. a revision, and sorne (non-)irnplications ¡br the c¡assroom. In PhiI¡ipson, R. et a¡. (eds.): 142-61. (95) Weltens, B., anO Bongaerts, T. (cds.). (1996). Euros/a 6. A Selectiva of Papers.

Nijrnegen: European Second Language Association . (96) Kerekes, 1. (1992). Development ¡u nonuative speakers’ use ciad perception of assertiveaess aad support¡veness ¡a mixed-sex con versatioas (Occasiona¡ Papa No. 21). Honoluln: University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Department of Engtish as a Second Language. (97) Krarnsch, C., anO McConnel¡-Oinet, 5. (cds.). (¡992). Ten and Coatext: Cross- disc¡pliacirv Perspectives va Longuage Studv. New York: D.C. Heath. (98) Krashen. Sl). (1977). Sorne issues related to Use Monitor Mojel, lo Brown. 1-ID. eL a¡., (eds.): 144-58. (99) (1985). TIte iapu¡ Hypothests: ¡ssues aral ¡,apl¡cations. New York: Longrnan. (¡00) lapus aad ¡atericiagucige: a rev¡ew of che research 153

Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational imp¡icature ¿o Japanese EFL learners. IRTLRullet¡a 9:35-67. (101) Lantolf, J.P., and Labarca, A. (eds.). (1987). Research ja Secoad Langucige Leara¡ag: Focus oa tite Classroom. Norwood, NS: Ablcx Publishing. (102) Larsen-Freeman, DE. (1976). ESL teacher speech as input ¿o the ESL tearner. Workpcipers ¡a Teachiag Eaglish cis ci Secoad Language 10: 45-49. (103) — (cd.). (1980). D¡scourse Aaalys¡s ¡a Secoad Loagucige Resecirch. Row¡ey, MA: Ncwbury House. (104) (1985). State of thc art on input in second language acquisition. In Gass, SM., and MadOen, C.C. (eds.): 433-44. (105)

—‘ anO Long, M.H. (1991). An latroductiva to Secoad Language Acquis¡t¡on Resecirch. London: Longman. (106) Leeman, 5., Arteagoitia, 1., Pridman, B., and Doughty, C. (1995). In[egrating altention to form with meaning: focus on form in content-based Spanish instruction. In Scbmidt, R. (ed.): 217-58. (107) Lcow, Rl’. (1997). Attcntion, awareness, anO toreign tanguage behavior. Language Leciraing 47: 467-505. (108) Lightbown, PM. (1992). Getting quality input in ¿he second/foreign language classroom. In Kramscb, C., and McConne¡¡-Ginet, 5. (cds.): 187-98. (109)

—, anO Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form anO corrective fecdback in communicativc language teaching: effects on second language learning. Stud¡es ¡a Secoad LaaguageAcqu¡s¡t¡oa ¡2: 429-48. (110) Lin, Y., anO Hedgcock, J. (1996). Negative fcedback incorporation among high- proficiency and low-proficiency Chinesc-speaking learners of Spanish. Langucige Lecira¡ag 46: 567-611. (111) LoCastro, V. (1997). Politeness anO pragmatic competence in forcign language education. Loagucige Teach¡ag Research 1: 239-67. (112) Long, M.H. (198%. Iaput, Intercichon, aad Secoad Luaguage Acquisition. Ph.D. Tbesis. University of California, Los Angeles. (113)

—. (¡981a). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In Winitz. H. (ed.): 259-78. (¡14) (1981b). Questions in forcigner talk discoursc. Loaguage Leciraiag 31: 135-57. (115) (¡983a). Native speaker/non-naLive speaker conversation anO ¿he negotiation of comprehensible input. Appl¡edL¡agu¡st¡cs4: 126-41. (116) (1983b). Linguistie anO conversaíiona¡ adjustments ¿o non-native speakers. Siudies ¡a SecoadLaaguageAcqu¡s¡tioa 5:177-93. (117) —. (1983c). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in ¿he second language classroom. In Clarke, M., and Handscombc, J. (eds.): 207-25. (118) (1985). Input and second language aequisition tbeory. In Gass, SM., anO MadOen, C.C. (eds.): 377-93. (1 t9) (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodo¡ogy. In de Bot, K. et al., (eds.): 39-52. (12Q) —, anO Portee, P. (1985). Group work, intertanguage ¿alt, anO secoad language acquisition. RESOL Quarterly 19: 207-27. (121) anO Sato, C.J. (1983). Classroom foreigner tatk Oiscourse: forms anO functions of Leachers’ questions. In Seliger, H.W., anO Long, M.H. (eds.): 268-86. (122) 154 Ana Boccinegra Valle

Lórseher, W. (1986). Conversationat structures in ¿he foreign language classroom. In Kasper, G. (ed.): 11-22. (123) Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language aequisition: what is ¿he relationship? Stud¡es ¡a Secoad Loagucige Acqu¡s¡t¡oa 16: 303-23. (124) Luján, V. (1997). Tbe role of individual and situationa¡ factors in ¿he use of compensatory s¿rategies by English leamers of Spanisb. In Díaz, L., anO Pérez, C. (eds.): 427-35. (125) Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies ¡a Secoad Loagucige Acqu¡s¡tioa 20: 51-81. (126) Lyster, R., and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback aud learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Stud¡es ¡a Secoad Loaguage Acqu¡s¡t¡oa 19: 37-66. (127) Maeshiba, N., Yosbinaga, N., Kasper, O., anO Ross, S. (1996). Transfer anO proficiency in interlanguage apo¡ogizing. In Gass, S., and Neu, J. (eds.): 155- 87. (128) Mebnert, U. (1998). The effects of different ¡engtbs of time for planning on second language performance. Stud¡es ¡a Secoad Langucige Acqu¡s¡t¡oa 20: 83-tOS. (129) Meise¡, J. (1977). Linguistic simptification: a study of immigrant workers’ speech anO foreigner talk. In Corder, SP., anO Rou¡et, E. (eds.): 88-113. (130) Morosawa, A. (1990). Intimacy anO urgency in request forms of Japanese: a psycholinguistic study. Soplila L¡ngu¡st¡ca 28: 129-43. (131) Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-¡earner negotiation in contení-based instruction: communication at cross-purposes?Appl¡edL¡aguist¡cs 17: 286-325. (132) Nagte, S., anO Sanders, 5. (1986). Comprehension theory and second ¡anguage pedagogy. TESOL Quarcer/y 20: 9-26. (133) Nobuyoshi, J., and Ellis, R. (1993). Focused cornmunication tasks anO second language acquisition. ELTJouraa/ 47: 203- ¡0. (t 34) Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedbaek in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies ¡a SecoadLoaguageAcquishloa 17:459-81. (135) OlshLain, E., and Cohen, A.D. (1990). Ihe leaming of complex speech act behavior. TESL Cciacidci Jouraal 7:45-65. (136) Osborne, R.J., anO Wittrock, MC. (1983). Learning science: a generative process. Sc¡eace Educcit¡oa 67: 489-508. (137) Paribakht. T. (1985). Strategic competence and language proficiency. Appl¡ed L¡agu¡st¡cs 6:132-46. (138) Phillipson, R., Kellerrnan, E., Selinker, L., Sharwood-Smith., anO Swain, M. (eds.). (1991). Fore¡ga/Secoad Lciaguage Pedcigogy Resecirch: a Commemorat¡ve Volumefor Cícius Fcierch. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. (¡39) Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social inLeraction and ¿be classroom. Appl¡ed L¡agu¡stics 8: 2-21. (140) (1991a). Classroom interaction, participation anO comprehension: redefining retationships. System 19:437-52. (141) —. (1991b). Foreige tanguage c¡assrooms: making ¿bern research-ready anO research-able. In Freed, E. (ed.): 393-412. (142) (1994a). Questions from the ¡anguage classroom: research perspectives. TESOL Quarterly 28: 49-79. (143) Jnpur and ¡arericiagucige: a rev¡ew of che research 155

—. (1 994b). Researcb on negotiation: wha¿ does it reveal about second-language leaming conditions, processes anO outcomes? Loaguage Leaming 44: 493-527. (144)

—. (1997). Second tanguage teacbing and research relationships: a North American vlew. Loagucige Teaciting Researc/z 1:48-72. (145)

—, and Dougb¿y, C. (1985a). Tbe rote of group work in classroom second tanguage acquisi[ion. Stud¡es ¡a Secoad Loaguage Acqu¡s¡tion 7: 233-48. (146) —‘ and Doughty, C. (1 985b). Input and interaction in ¿he communicative language c¡assroom: a comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In Gass, SM., anO Madden, CG. (eds.): 115-32. (147) —‘ Holtiday, L, Lewis, N., and Morgentbaler, L (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of ¡inguistic dernands on the leamer. Stud¡es ¡a Secoad Langucige Acquis¡t¡on II: 63-90. (148)

—‘ HoI¡iday, L., Lewis, N., Berducci, D., anO Newman, J. (1991). Language learning through interaction: wbat role does gender play? Studies ¡a Secoad Language Acqu¡sition 13: 346-76. (149) —, Linco¡n-Porter, F., Paninos, D., and Linnelí, J. (1995). What can second language learners ¡care from eaeb ottier? Only ¿be researcher knows for sure. Ua¡versity of Peaasylvciaici, Work¡ag Papers ¡a Educcitional L¡aguist¡cs 11, 1. (150) —, Lincoin-Porter, F., Paninos, D., anO Linnelí, J. (1996). Language learners interaction: how does it address ¿he input. output. and feedback of L2 learners? RESOL Qucirterly 30: 59-84. (151)

—, Young, R., and Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarter/y 2t: 737-59. (152) Plough, 1., and Gass, 5. (1993). Interlocutor anO Lask familiarity: effects on interactional strueture. In Crookes, G., anO Gass, 5. (eds.): 35-56. (153) Porter, PA. (1986). How ¡earners talk Lo each other: input ano interaction in task- centered discussions. In Day, R.R. (ed.): 200-22. (154) Pou¡isse, N. (1987). Problems anO solutions in the classification of compensatory strategies. SecoadLoagucige Research 3:141-53. (155)

—. (1990). Tite use of compeasacory strateg¡es by Durch learaers of Eaglish. Dordrecbt: Foris. (156) (1993). A Iheoretical accounL of lexical communicaíion s¿rategies. In Scbreduder, R., ano Weltens ,B. (cds.): 157-89. (157)

—‘ Bongaeris, T., and Ketlerman, E. (1987). The use of retrospeetive verbal reports in the analysis of eompensatory strategies. In Faerch, C., and Kasper, O. (eds.): 213-29. (158) Richards, J., anO Scbmidt, R. (eds.). (1983). Language aad Com,aun¡cation. Iarlow: Longman. (159) Robinson, MA. (1992). Introspectivo methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In Kasper, G. (ed.): 27-82. (160) Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, anO ¿he ‘noticing’ hypothesis. Loaguage Lecira¡ag 45: 283-331. (161) —. (1997). Individual differences anO ¿he fundamentat similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language tearning. Language Lecira¡ag 47: 45-99. (162) Ruttierford, W., and Sbarwood-Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising anO universal gramínar. In Rutherford, W., anO M. Sharwood-Srni¿h, M. (eds.): 274- 82. (163) 156 Ana Boccinegra Val/e

and Sharwood-Smith, M. (eds.). (1985). Grammar aad Secoad Langucige Lecirn¡ag. New York: Newbury House. (164) Samuda, V., and Rounds, P. (1993). Critical episoOes: reference points for analyzing a task in action. In Crookes, O., and Gass, S. (eds.): 125-38. (165) Scarce¡¡a, R.C. (1992). Interetbnic conversation and second language acquisition: discourse accent revisited. In Gass, 5., anO Selinker, L. (eds.): ¡09-37. (166) and Higa, CA. (1981). luput, negotiation, and age differences in second language acquisition. Loagucige Learaiag 3 ¡: 409-37. (167) anO Zimmerman, C. (1998). Acadernic words anO gender: ESL studcnt performance on a Test of Academic Lexicon. Stud ¡es ¡a Secoad Loaguage Acqu¡s¡tion 20: 27-49. (168) Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Secoad Loagucige Research 7: 89-102. (169) Schinke-Ltano, L. (1983). Foreigner talk in content classrooms. In Se¡iger, H.W., and Long, M. (eds.): 146-65. (¡70) Schmidt, R.W. (1990). The role of consdlousness In second language learning. AppliedL¡ngu¡shcs ¡ t: 129-58. (171) —. (1993). Awareness and second tanguage acquisition. Anaucil Rev¡ew of Appl¡ed Lingu¡st¡cs 13: 206-26. (172) —. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language tearning: a tutorial on the ro¡e of aLtention and awareness in ¡earning. In Schrnidt, R.W. (cd.): t-63. (173) —. (ed.). (1995). Atcencioa ciad Awareaess ¡a Foreiga Loaguage Learaiag. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Second Language Teaching anO Curriculum Center. (174)

—‘ anO Frota, 5. (1986). Deve¡oping basic conversationa¡ ability in a second ¡anguage: A case síudy of an adu¡t learner of Portuguese. In Day, R.R., (cd.): 237-326. (175) Sebreduder, R., anO Weltens, B. (eds.). (1993). Tite B¡l¡agual Lex¡con. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (176) Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of ¿he nIissing «no»: Lbe re¡ationship between pedagogy anO interaction. Loaguage Lecira¡ag 47: 547-83. (177) Seliger, H.W., aud Long, M.H. (eds.). (¡983). Classroom Or¡eaced Research ¡u Secoad Langucige Acquis¡tioa. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. (¡78) Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL lO: 209-30. (179) Skehan, P., anO Foster, P. (1997). Task type anO task processing conditions as influences on foreign ¡anguage performance. Longuage Tecichiag Research 1: 185-211. (180) Slimani, A. (1992). Evaluation of ctassroom interaction. In Anderson, C., anO Beretta, A. (cds.): 197-221. (181) Snow, C., Van Needen, R., and Muysken, P. (1981). The interactional origins of foreigner talk. International Joaracil of tite Sociology of Loaguage 28: 83-93. (182) Spada, N., anO Fróhlich, M. (1995). COLT. Commun¡cai¡ve Or¡entat¡oa of Language Teachiag Observat¡oa Scheme: Cod¡ag Coavent¡ons ciad Appl¡cations. Sydney: Nationa¡ Centre for English Language Tcaching and Research. (183)

—‘ anO Ligbtbown, P. (1993). Instruction and ¿he deve¡oprnent of questions in L2 classrooms. Scud¡es ¡a Secoad Language Acquisitioa 15: 205-24. (¡84) Input ant! ¡acerlaaguage: a review of tite researclz 157

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: sorne rotes of comprehensib¡e input anO comprebensible output in i[s development. In Gass, 5., and Madden, C. (eds.): 235-53. (185) (1993). The output hypotbesis: Just speaking anO writing aren’t enougb. The Cciacid¡cia Modera Loagucige Rev¡ew 50: 158-64. (186) —. (1995). Three functions of output in second tanguage learning. la Cook, O., anO Seidíhofer, B. (eds.): 125-44. (187)

—, and Lapkin, 5. (1994). Prohlems ¡a output ant! tite cogaft¡ve processes titey generate: ci step towards secoad language lecira¡ag. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. (188)

—, anO Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output anO ¿be cognitive processes ¿bey generaLe: a step Lowards secoad language learning. Appl¡ed Liagu¡st¡cs 16: 371- 91. (189) Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatie transferability. Stud¡es ¡n Secoad Language Acqu¡s¡tion 18: 189-223. (190) Tarone, E. (1977). Coascinus communication strategies ja interlanguage: a progress report. In Brown, H.D. et al. (eds.): t94-203.(191) —. (1980). Commuaication strategies, foreigner ¿alk and repair in interlanguage. Loaguage Lecira¡ag 30: 417-31. (192) —. (1981). Sorne tbougbts on ¿he notion of communication strategy. TESOL Qucirterly 15: 285-95. (193) Cohen, A., anO Dumas, 0. (1976). A closer look at sorne interlanguage terminology: a framework for communication strategies. Work¡ag Pcipers vn B¡liagualism 9: 76-90. (194) Tomase¡lo, M., aad Herron, C. (1989). Feedbaek for language traasfer errors: ¿he Garden Pat Tecbaique. Studies ¡a Secoad Loaguage Acquisit¡on 11: 385-95. (195) Tomila. R., anO Villa, V. (1994). Atiention in cognitive science anO second language acquisition. Siudies in Secoad Loaguage Acqu¡s¡tion 16: 183-203. (196) Trosborg. A. (1995). Jateríciaguage Prcigmcitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (197) Tyler, A. (1995). Re coconstruction of cross-cultural miscommunication: conflicts in perception, negotiation, anO enactment of panicipant role anO status. Studies ¡n SecoadLoagucigeAcquis¡tioa 17: 129-52. (198) Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on ¡anguage learners’ output. Loagucige Lecira¡ag 47: 589t36. (199) Van Lier, L. (1988). Tite Clcissroom ciad tite Loagucige Leciraer London: Longman. (200) Van Pa¿¿en, B. (1990). Attending ¿o form and conteal in ¿he input: an experimen¿ La consciousness. Srud¡es ¡a SecoadLonguageAcquisihon 12: 287-301. (201)

—‘ and Cadierno, T. (1993a). Explicit instruction anO iaput processing. Studies ¡a Secoad Loaguage Acqu¡sic¡oa 15: 225-43. (202) anO Cadiemo, T. (1993b). lapul processing anO secoad language acquisition: a role for instruction. Modera Loagucige Jouracil 77: 45-57. (203) Dvorak, T.R., and Lee. J.F. (eds.). (1987). Fore¡ga Loaguage Lecira¡ag. Row¡ey, Mass.: Newbury House. (204) — anO Lee, J.F. (eds.). (1990). Secoad Language Acquis¡t¡on - Foreiga Loaguage Leara¡ag. C¡evedon, Avon: Multitiagual Matters. (205) 158 Ana Bocaaegra Valle

Varonis, EM., anO Gass, SM. (1985a). Non-native/non-native conversations: a rnode¡ for negotiation of meaning.Applied Lingu¡stics 6: 71-90. (206) — (t985b), Miscommunication ¡a NS/NNS interactioas. Loaguage ¡a Svc¡e¡y ¡4: 327-43. (207) Wagner-Gough, J., and Hatch, F.M. (1975). Re importance of input daLa in second language acquisition siudies. Language Learn¡ng, 25: 297-308. (208) Wesche, MB., anO Ready, D. (1985). Foreigner talk in the university classroorn. ¡a Gass, S.M., and MadOen, C.C. (cds.): 89-114. (209) Wbite, L. (1987). Agaiast comprehensib¡e input: ¿be lapul Hypothesis anO ¿he development of sedt)nd-language competence. Applied L¡agu¡st¡cs, 8: 95- ¡10. (210) —. (1991). Adverb placemen¿ in second language acquisition: sorne effecs of positive and negative evideace in tbe classroom. Secoad Loaguage Research 7: 133-61. (211)

—, Spada, N., Lightbown, P., anO Ranta, L. (t99¡). Input enhancemení and question formation. Applíed L¡nguist¡cs 12: 416-32. (212) Wildner-Bassett, M. (1990). Coexistiag diseourse worlds: the development of pragmatie competence inside anO outside the classroom. In Van Patten, B., and Lee, J.F. (eds.): 140-52. (213) Willems, G. (¡987). Communication strategies and their significance in foreign language teacbing. Syscem 15: 35 1-64. (214) Wing, EH. (1987). Ihe linguis¿ic and comrnunicative functions of foreign language teacher talk. In Van PalLen, B., Dvorak, T.R., anO Lee, J.F. (eds.): 158-73. (215) Winitz, H. (ed.). (1981). Ncit¡ve Longucige aad Fore¡gn Laaguage Acqu¡s¡t¡va. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. (216) Wo1fson, N., and Judd, E. (eds.). (1983). Svc¡olinguistics ciad Langucige Acqutsittoa. Row¡ey, MA: Newbury House. (217) Wong-Fillmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In Gass, SM., anO Madden, C.C. (eds.): 17-50. (2¡8) —. (1992). Learning a language from learners. In Kramsch, C., and McConne¡¡- Ginet, 5. (eds.): 46-66. (219) Youag, R. (¡977). Eagl¡sh Fore¡gaer Tci/k. MA. Thesis. University of Reading. (220) —. (1988). laput anO interaction. Aaaual Rev¡ew of Applied L¡agu¡st¡cs, 9: 122-34. (221) aad Doughty, C. (1987). Negotiation in context: areview of research. In Lanto¡f, J.P., anO Labarca, A. (eds.): 212-23. (222) Yule, G., Powers, M., anO Maedonaid, D. (1992). The variable effect of sorne task- based learniag procedures oa L2 comifiunicative effectiveness. Laaguage Leara¡ng 42: 249-77. (223) Zhaag, Y. (1995). Strategies in Chinese requesting. In Kasper, O. (ed.): 23-67. (224) Iapuc aad ¡ateríciagucige: ci rev¡ew of tite resecirch 159

APPENDIX 1. A summary of the works cited L INPUT AND INTERLANGUAGE: A REVIEW OF TIff RESEARCH INTRODUCTION 29-67-77-99-100-103-113-I 19-185-197-208

INTERACTION AND MODIFICATION OF INPUT 5-8-13-16-21-24-25-26-33-42-50-51-52-53-59-60-61-64-65-70- 7¡-73-74-75-76-79-80-82-84-lO5-106-113-114-Il5-116-¡17- 1 18-t19-121-122-124-130-132-140-141-142-146-147-148-150- .4 ~1 151-152-154-167-170-181-182-184-200-206-207-209-2t5-218- 2 19-220-22 1-222 NEGATIVE EVIDENCE OF UNACCEPTED INPUT 4-17-22-23-33-34-36-40-48-58-70-72-73-81-89- t 10-111-124- .4 ¡ 127-135-144-145-148-l69-177-183-185-186-187-195-199-206- 207-210 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL PROCESSES OF NEGOTIATION

¡2-19-20-30-38-44-45-46-55-66-87-95-125-133-137-138-145- .4——-, 155-156-157-158-161-163-172-175-179-187-188-I 89-191-192- 193-194-196-213-214 ¡ 1 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ E ¡ ¡ 1 ¡ PRAGMATIC INPUT AND ILP DEVELOPMENT 1 ¡ .4-, ¡ ¡ 11-88-93-94-123-154 ¡ 1 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ 1 ¡ ¡ ¡ INPUT AND INTERLANGUAGE ¡ 1 ¡ ¡ 1 h ¡ PRAGMATICS 1 ¡ ¡ 9-lO-11-14-15-85-94-97-101-1 12-128-131- 136-160-172-190-197-224 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ INPUT ANOSTRATEGIC COMPETENCE ¡ 1 ¡ 12-44-95-125-156-157 • 1 ¡ E ¡ ¡ 1 E ¡ 1 ¡ INPUT AND COGNITIVE RECEPTIVE ¡ 1 ¡ ¡ ¡ BEHAVTOURS E ¡ 1-47-54-73-107-108-¡1 1-120-124-134-144- 149-150-¡51-l61-162-171-172-173-189- 201-211

¡ ¡ INPUT AND NEGATIVE FEEDBACK E ¡ 23-37-40-48-58-81-109-1 10-126-127-135- ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ 177- 199-211-212

INPUT AND NEGOTIATED INTERACTION J 53-6t-73-1 10-124-132-143-150-151-211-219

INPUT AND OUTPUT 41-62-129-149-153-165-166-168-180-198- J 202-203-223