After taking a look at language acquisition, defining some terms, and examining Internal Factors that constrain language acquisition, this week we’ll take a look at External Factors that constrain language acquisition and some implications for language instruction.
In his book While We’re on the Topic (2017), Bill VanPatten presents both internal and external factors that constrain (compel, limit) acquisition of languages, whether first, second, third, or subsequent. He calls the internal constraints on acquisition Universal Grammar (UG) but notes that this does not account for all acquisition that takes place; general learning mechanisms also play a role, but these, too, exercise internal constraints.
Today, we’re looking at
External Factors
VanPatten lists two primary External Factors that constrain language acquisition: input and interaction. (2017, p. 48, 50)
Input
The first task is to define the word input. VanPatten calls it “language that learners hear or see in a communicative context” or “language that learners are exposed to that they process for meaning”.
It is important to note that language not used for communication is not input according to VanPatten. Only language used in communication qualifies as input. In fact, input is not about the language per se but about meaning embedded in communicative events.
VanPatten puts it this way: As long as the purpose of the first or second language learner is to understand a message, then the language the learner is exposed to qualifies as input.
Two important principles follow from this:
Language acquisition is a byproduct of understanding messages;
Comprehension of language is a requirement for acquisition but does not guarantee it.
There are factors and conditions that can interfere with acquisition, so simply understanding messages does not guarantee acquisition. However, acquisition cannot happen without understanding. Dr Stephen Krashen distilled the principle thus:
Acquisition happens only through understanding messages
Why is this so?
Because the general learning mechanisms (and Universal Grammar) can operate only on data contained in input. Thus, study plus practice (or, from the teacher’s perspective, Present, Practice, Perform) does not lead to acquisition.
VanPatten likens the situation to scanners at the supermarket. The device is designed to read only a certain set of data, the barcode. Nothing else is readable or usable. Internal factors (general learning mechanisms and UG) constrain what external factor (input) leads to acquisition.
However, this external factor constrains acquisition through two aspects: quantity and quality.
If quantity of input is important, how much should there be? The variables (quality of input, quality of reception, difficulty of the embedded language, comprehension, etc.) are so great, that it is impossible to say. However, the consensus is: a lot – far more than happens in most foreign language classrooms.
There are a couple of misunderstandings not presented in VanPatten’s work that often creep into people’s ideas of quantity. These two misunderstandings are encapsulated in two common quotes: “A flood of output must precede a trickle of input” and “It takes 170 repetitions for a word to be acquired”.
The first quote is often attributed to Wynne Wong, Professor of French and SLA at Ohio State University. I have made this attribution. However, when I could not find any written piece that cited a work or presentation by Wong for this quote, I contacted her by e-mail to ask for myself. She was very gracious in her reply but firm in her denial of every having said this. As she explained it in her e-mail to me, “I like that it’s catchy but I did not say this and as much as I like the image, I cannot say it accurately summarizes my views about input and output. For me, input must precede output, but output does not necessarily have to be a trickle after input. Exactly how much and what the ratio of input to output should be is not clear because there are so many factors at play. … I would not attempt to quantify the amount.”
Thus, we have the principle that students need a lot of input, perhaps a veritable flood (not to be confused with “input flooding”), or as Hart Crane put it:
One must be drenched in words, literally soaked in them, to have the right ones form themselves into the proper pattern at the right moment.
Output will follow, whether as a trickle or a flood of its own, when the learner is ready and should not be forced.
The second quote comes from Susan Gross, one of the early adopters of TPRS and an influential trainer and presenter. At a presentation I attended, Gross explained that she had made up the number at random. The idea was not that there is some “magic number” of repetitions that must take place for acquisition, but that teachers have traditionally given students far too little exposure to the language for acquisition.
Remember that one of the aspects of input is quantity.
In many classrooms, the teacher has traditionally presented a vocabulary list, read through it a couple of times, and had students repeat the words. Then the teacher assumed that the words had been “learned” and demanded that students use them in exercises and activities. The quote was a bit of hyperbole to draw attention to this bit of misfeasance of teaching and counteract it. It was never intended to be taken literally, although many people have done so.
(As a further Off-Topic aside, the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:22 are not intended literally. In context, Jesus is teaching his disciples about forgiveness. Peter then asks if forgiving someone seven times is enough. Jesus replies, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.” Since Christians aren’t supposed to be keeping score in the first place, seventy times seven represents a number so large as to be meaningless. In other words, forgive and keep forgiving sincere repentance. But far too many people get caught up in the letter rather than the spirit of these sayings – just like how many words are needed for acquisition. There are far more important things than counting either the number of times someone asks for forgiveness or how many times the teacher uses a particular word.)
Returning to the topic of input, the first important aspect of this external constraint on acquisition is to provide lots of it, far more than the teacher thinks necessary or “reasonable”.
The second aspect of input is quality.
To be effective, the input needs to be comprehensible; otherwise it is not truly input (or, from the learner’s point of view, uptake). In addition, input must be engaging and important, thus giving the learner a reason to pay attention to the message. As VanPatten puts it:
If learners aren’t paying attention to the message, even if the input is comprehensible, acquisition ain’t gonna happen.
Interaction
Simply put, since language exists to communicate – express, interpret, and negotiate meaning – at least two people must be involved. Furthermore,
input is better when someone is talking with a learner, not at a learner.
This is not, however, adherence to a psychosocial theory of language acquisition. It is more in line with Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis. In other words, the quality of the interaction is one of the external factors that influences – constrains – student receptivity to the input.
Furthermore, “Learner engagement with another person causes the input to be adjusted and negotiated so more comprehension occurs.”
This is not the “Noticing Hypothesis” (Richard Schmidt) but the natural and intuitive adjustments that speakers make when there is lack of understanding. It’s part of communication, the negotiation of meaning.
Interaction also does not mean that the learner is talking. Learners can use gestures, hand and body movements, facial expression, and a host of other techniques to provide nonverbal and non-language interaction.
What are the Implications for Language Teaching?
I will simply give the summaries that VanPatten provides. Elaboration will have to wait for a later post.
The effects of explicit teaching and practice with language are severely limited. Instruction should focus on things that foster acquisition.
We should work with the learner’s natural acquisition processes, not against them.
We must educate students, parents, colleagues, and administrators about the nature of acquisition (as well as the nature of language and communication).
Classroom and materials need to be spaces in which learners receive lots of input and have many chances to interact with it.