Social Interaction and Second Language Learning

Patricia A. Duff & Victoria Surtees

Introduction

Most contemporary theories of second language learning place considerable emphasis on

the role of social interaction, joint activity, or socialization in learning. In this chapter, we

present some of the core features shared by these social-interactional approaches, discuss

relevant research findings, and then consider some implications for second-language education

and assessment.

What is Social Interaction?

Intuitively, when we think of social interaction, we imagine familiar scenes of friends

chatting over coffee, children playing with their parents, or even students gossiping before class.

In a formal language learning context, those interactions might include spontaneous talk

produced for classroom tasks, like information-gap activities (where students must share

information each one has to solve a problem or complete an activity), debates, or peer-feedback

sessions on writing. Outside of class, learners might speak with servers at a lunch counter or with

friends, roommates, or coworkers for a variety of purposes. Each situation presents an

opportunity for language practice and, potentially, development (i.e., improvement in

proficiency, as determined by greater fluency, accuracy, pragmatic effectiveness, clearer

pronunciation, and also growing confidence as a second language user).

We tend to associate social interaction with face-to-face discourse such as conversation.

Indeed, that is how interaction has traditionally been viewed in the field of second language

1
acquisition (SLA). However, in today’s increasingly technology enabled and dependent society,

social interaction encompasses a much broader spectrum of language practices, actions, and

semiotic forms (not just language but other visual and auditory information). In addition, the

social configurations range from very formal to very informal, and from immediate encounters,

to more distant encounters mediated by digital devices. People of all ages are now using

smartphones and tablets or computers to communicate via text messages, audio messages, or

video chat with peers, relatives, strangers, and even teachers. Second language (L2) interaction

research, pedagogy, and assessment are also turning towards these new forms of communication

and investigating both face-to-face and technologically-mediated discourse, some of which is

written but shares features with oral discourse. While some researchers have investigated

asynchronous social interaction (i.e., exchanges that do not take place in real time), such as email

messages (e.g., Stockwell & Harrington, 2013), we aim here to represent the primary focus of

SLA literature for the past four decades, which investigates synchronous (real-time) talk amongst

small groups of learners or between learners and expert speakers in a variety of face-to-face and

online settings (see, e.g., Ellis, 2008; Mackey, 2013; McDonough & Mackey, 2013).

For the purposes of this chapter, we consider social interaction to be relatively unscripted,

spontaneous talk in a particular context that occurs between two or more interlocutors who are

actively engaged in the verbal activity. This interaction offers L2 practice for at least one of the

interlocutors (if not all), and thus, potential opportunities for L2 development. Social interactions

can foster mutual attention and situated language use that is both personally relevant and

linguistically accessible, and thus is especially rewarding for language learners. Of course, not all

forms of social interaction are created equal: each presents different opportunities and challenges

2
for language learning depending on formality, the relationship between interlocutors, the purpose

of the talk, and the mode of communication.

In the following section, we review key insights from two different clusters of SLA

theories regarding the role of social interaction in the language learning process.

Social Interaction in Second Language Learning: A Theoretical Overview

Since the early 1980s, second language (L2) learning and teaching have emphasized the

role of social interaction in language development and in education more generally (e.g., Ellis,

2008; Markee, 2015; Mitchell, Myles, & Marsden, 2013; Ortega, 2009). Not only does

interaction provide opportunities for language practice, it also allows interlocutors to question

one another or alter their utterances to ensure that their intended meanings are understood using

effective linguistic expressions. This process of negotiating for meaning, according to decades of

SLA research, facilitates L2 learning. Applied linguists and teachers recognize that ample

exposure to another language without social engagement, interactivity, or the negotiation of

forms and meanings, is, for most learners, inadequate if they wish to become proficient or

communicatively competent users--and especially speakers--of another language.

In what follows, we consider how different theories of L2 learning have conceptualized the

role of social interaction. We group the approaches, loosely, as (1) cognitive-interactionist and

(2) sociocultural. Each represents a much wider and more diverse set of approaches to learning,

but space precludes a detailed discussion of all of the distinctions within and across these

groupings. Of central importance here is their shared emphasis on an individual’s active

interaction or engagement with others--and with language--as part of the SLA process.

Differences lie in their relative emphasis on cognitive or linguistic aspects versus the social-

3
relational and cultural aspects of mutual engagement in language activity. Both consider mental

processes, but in different ways and using different metaphors.

1. Cognitive-interactionist theories: Input-Interaction-Output

Researchers adopting a cognitive-interactionist approach investigate how external

environmental factors, such as type of linguistic input, interact with cognitive processes--such as

attention, memory, and syntactic processing--to foster acquisition. Long’s Interaction Hypothesis

(Long 1980, 1996) posited that social interaction (often termed conversation in this perspective

and commonly structured as a dyadic exchange between pairs of interlocutors) facilitates

connections between external input and internal representations of language by focusing

learners’ attention on linguistic structure (or form) through the negotiation of meaning.

According to Long, social interaction can provide learners with opportunities to:

● notice new forms in personally meaningful communication

● request clarification of unfamiliar or unclear meaning or usage

● receive explicit or implicit feedback

● experiment with new forms in authentic contexts

These opportunities afforded by social interactions typically entail brief breakdowns in

communication that are subsequently negotiated and resolved. When one learner says to another

“I go to football game” and the response is: “When? Yesterday or today?”, these questions might

help the first speaker realize that the time- or tense-marking in the initial utterance was not

adequate (i.e., that if it is a past event, go should be went, or if a future event, then am going/will

be going). The clarification requests might also signal that a temporal adverb would help (e.g.,

yesterday, tonight).

4
 Thus, cognitive interactionists primarily view social interaction as an essential factor in

SLA characterized (ideally) by (1) modified input targeted at the level of the speaker, (2)

negotiation for meaning to ensure mutual understanding, and (3) output or the production of

speech. The interaction provides not only practice but an occasion for speakers to hear their own

output and consider how it compares with their own intended production or with others’ ways of

saying the same thing. These three components are sometimes referred to as input-interaction-

output, a phrase associated with an information-processing, computational metaphor. Positive

outcomes of negotiated interaction are, in this line of research, expected to include higher rates

of comprehension by learners and evidence of having learned the negotiated forms (usually

based on immediate responses, or tests soon after the original negotiation or much later).

Early investigations of the Interaction Hypothesis focused on the acquisition of

morphology and syntax on tasks in which learners negotiated meaning in interaction with more

proficient speakers (see Ortega, 2009). Two pioneering studies found that adult learners of

English who interacted spontaneously with English native-speakers during structured tasks were

able to use target forms (e.g., certain kinds of questions) more accurately on later tasks than

those who did not interact in the same manner (Gass & Varonis, 1994; Mackey, 1999). Current

research is examining how different elements of the interaction, such as the purpose (task-type),

interlocutor (learner vs. expert speaker), and communication mode (online vs. face-to-face)

shape opportunities for negotiating meaning or form. Adams (2007), for example, investigated

development of past-tense forms, locative constructions (e.g., to the right of), and question

formation for 25 adult ESL learners following three learner-learner interactive tasks. She found

that when tested on the language forms that were negotiated in interaction, learners demonstrated

development for about 60% of the test items, a proportion similar to other research involving

5
learner-native speaker interactions. She therefore concluded that learner-learner interaction may

be as beneficial as interaction with native speakers for the learning of certain forms.

Rouhshad, Wigglesworth and Storch (2015) also investigated adult ESL learner-learner

interactions, but compared face-to-face and online text-chat interactions for 12 dyads during

particular decision-making tasks. They found that the online context produced substantially

fewer negotiations despite the task instructions, which explicitly encouraged peer feedback.

These findings indicate that negotiation is not present in all social interaction and may be a

function of the talk’s purpose rather than the interaction itself.

Research from this general cognitive-interactionist orientation reveals that the variety of

social interactions in which learners engage provides a rich tapestry of distributed opportunities

for processing, practicing, and internalizing linguistic forms. These studies also show that

interaction with native speakers of the L2 as the ultimate learning configuration should not be

over-emphasized, knowing that learners can gain a great deal from interacting with other learners

from their own and other linguistic backgrounds.

2. Sociocultural Theories

A growing body of research places much more emphasis on the social and cultural

dimensions of learning, and the mediation of learning and cognition by various tools, one of

which is language itself. This work also underscores participants’ roles, relationships,

interactions, and goals when taking part in various kinds of linguistic activity (e.g., Lantolf,

2000, 2014; Swain & Deters, 2007). These sociocultural approaches draw heavily upon the early

work of Vygotsky (1978) and consider social interaction (often described as mediation),

scaffolding (or support from more proficient mentors), and joint goal-focused activity as key

factors in language development and learning more generally. The broader learning context (such

6
as curriculum or ideologies) or learning ecology is also taken into account. Additional

dimensions of interaction may also be examined, such as learners’ emotional states or sense of

identity or self, as well as how learners gain access to, or are positioned in and through,

interactions as capable or incapable speakers, for example, or as native vs. nonnative speakers,

and how that positioning affects their learning. The linguistic (L2) communities of practice (Lave

& Wenger, 1991) or social networks learners participate in (or wish to participate in) are also

examined, as well as their changing modes and degrees of participation in them (Swain &

Deters, 2007; Zappa-Hollman & Duff, 2015). Given this focus on the socially-situated nature of

interaction and participation, sociocultural research tends to examine language activity in

naturally occurring contexts (including classrooms and communities) rather than in

experimentally designed interactions in lab-like settings.

Recent sociocultural SLA studies reveal that social contexts which are assumed to be

conducive to considerable amounts of interaction (e.g., immersion or study abroad programs)

may not be as conducive to L2 learning as expected, depending on the kinds of relationships that

are cultivated (e.g., Kinginger, 2009). Furthermore, for some learners it is precisely those

relational and cultural aspects of learning or using another language that are more important than

linguistic accuracy. In study-abroad research contexts, the interactions between students and

their homestay hosts, or between roommates in university dormitory settings, or other

interlocutors are often studied to examine how learners improve in their L2 pragmatics, register

variation, and culturally and linguistically appropriate ways of expressing affect (Kinginger,

2009). These aspects of language use may not be addressed in more formal learning contexts or

textbooks.

7
 Some of this study abroad research takes a language socialization perspective, which is a

sociocultural approach to linguistic and cultural development. Language socialization

foregrounds the role of (co-)participation and mentorship, or apprenticeship, within social groups

that enables novices/learners and peers to observe and increasingly use language in normative

ways in a given culture or discourse community (Duff & Talmy, 2011).

Pragmatics (i.e., using language in appropriate ways in different social contexts) is one of

several traditional foci of L1 and L2 socialization research. For example, if a person (A) wanted

to end an interaction with others and leave the premises, the utterance “I go now!” might be

corrected by an interlocutor (B) through a recast: “You’re going now? So soon? See you later!”

B’s response to A attends to both the grammatical and pragmatic attributes of the utterance.

Mentors such as teachers or tutors might be quite explicit in pointing out these pragmatic

conventions connected with leave-taking in different situations (i.e., announcing that you are

leaving is not a substitute for some kind of salutation, such as Goodbye or See you later!,

depending on the context). Usually, through extended experience involving observation and

social interaction within a particular community, newcomers become sensitive to such

normative, highly situated linguistic/cultural practices and begin to approximate and internalize

the linguistic behaviors, cultural dispositions and values of more experienced group members.

However, as seen in the previous section, without explicit feedback (a form of socialization),

learners might not notice differences between their language use and that of others, or might not

be aware of the underlying values or cultural meanings associated with particular routine forms.

Sociocognitive approaches to L1 and L2 learning and interaction (e.g., Atkinson, 2014),

highlight how interlocutors align with each other physically, affectively, and cognitively in their

face-to-face interactions as part of the communication and learning process. Atkinson’s work, for

8
example, explores how the physical movements of interlocutors--their gestures or their eye gaze-

-become subconsciously synchronized (i.e., aligned with or attuned to one another) as they focus

their attention on certain linguistic tasks or structures. In this view, learning by means of social

interaction is a kind of mutual adaptation and not simply the processing and storage of linguistic

information.

Much of this socioculturally oriented L2 research (and the learning it is based on) takes

place outside of formal second-language instructional settings, such as in informal tutorials. To

gain an understanding of the out-of-class contexts in which learners interact with others,

researchers and teachers can examine the strength, type and number of their connections with

others in the learning milieu. They can then discern how interactions with members of their

social networks facilitate or mediate their L2 learning (e.g., Zappa-Hollman & Duff, 2015). In

addition, learners can reflect on how such associations and interactions affirm their identities or

provide emotional, linguistic, and other forms of support (e.g., academic, cultural) that contribute

to their learning and social integration.

Implications of Social-Interactionist Approaches for Teaching and Assessment

If social interaction is indeed a crucial feature of becoming more communicatively

competent in an L2, then teachers need to devise ways of optimizing instructional activities and

assessments to allow students to use language with others to accomplish learning and

performance objectives. Many curricular approaches, such as task-based language teaching and

service learning, emphasize students’ active engagement with others in the learning process (see

Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Snow, 2014). In these approaches, social interaction is fostered

through students’ mutual interest in working collaboratively to accomplish group tasks or

projects or to achieve other kinds of shared goals. In what follows, we highlight some of the

9
innovative ways in which instructors and program designers are encouraging L2 interaction

beyond the classroom or are incorporating interactive tasks into assessment practices.

Promoting interaction beyond the classroom

It has never been easier to put learners in contact with other L2 speakers, either through

out-of-class projects involving local members of the target L2 community or through

telecollaboration projects that connect students in different parts of the world via email and chat.

For example, taking advantage of the multicultural urban environment in Japanese cities, Strong

(2009) reported a project in which university students of English participated in a field trip to an

English-dominant synagogue where they interviewed English speakers in order to complete a

cultural project. In another study, Bower and Kawaguchi (2011) took advantage of students’

access to new technologies and created an online language exchange between English learners in

Japan and Japanese learners in the United States. Using MSN messenger, students were able to

chat informally via text with similarly-aged peers. In these ways, even in contexts with few L2

speakers, the researchers created meaningful opportunities for social interaction and learning.

In contexts where students are surrounded by L2 speakers (e.g., in study abroad), it would

seem a simple task to encourage students to interact informally with locals. However, students

with low language proficiency, who are shy, or who travel to a new country as part of a cohort,

may still have difficulties finding opportunities for sustained L2 interaction and relationships.

Program designers may want to incorporate mentorship or language exchange programs where a

session is split so that an English-speaking learner of Japanese, for example, can practice

speaking Japanese with a Japanese speaker; and in return, in the other half of the session, the pair

speaks English. Similarly, interview activities could be assigned for those in homestay situations

to foster longer and more complex interactions with their host families. Knight and Schmidt-

10
Rinehardt (2010) created a Family Interactive Journal, in which American students sojourning in

either Mexico or Spain completed two interactive tasks of their choice per week on cultural

topics such as the news, food, or local customs. Students who completed the journal tasks

reported more interaction and a better understanding of their host family.

Interactive assessments and the assessment of interaction

Increasingly, language assessment incorporates an interactional approach as well. In one

approach, for example, pairs of test-takers may be matched to do oral tasks together (e.g.,

compare and contrast pictures) with an assessor present. This format is found on the spoken

component of the Cambridge English: Advanced (CAE) exam

http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams/advanced/exam-format/). In another interactive

approach to assessment, peers take part in group-based oral activities; the individuals within the

groups are then assessed individually (Gan, 2010; Winke, 2013). For example, the groups might

be asked to decide which items from a large set of possible items they would take with them to a

deserted island, and why those items and not others. The participants in both of these test formats

are assessed based on how well they perform linguistically in interaction with others (e.g., by not

monopolizing talk, but contributing to it in constructive, effective, comprehensible and

appropriate ways). The information from such assessments can then be used to evaluate student

learning for summative purposes (showing what they have learned in a course), for placement

purposes (to determine the level of class they should be placed in), or as part of a general

measure of proficiency.

Another approach to assessment known as Dynamic Assessment, which draws on

sociocultural theory, provides individuals being assessed some assistance from their assessors or

others (e.g., peers) in order to demonstrate what the learners are capable of doing--and learning--

11
when particular forms of support are provided (Antón, 2015; Lantolf & Poehner, 2011; Poehner,

2009). It is felt that these interactive approaches to assessment better mirror the ways in which

language is used in communication-oriented classroom instruction, as well as in (optimal)

extracurricular social encounters. Furthermore, these approaches, it is claimed, provide a better

representation of people’s ability to speak with others than traditional (more monologic) forms of

assessment. In addition, particularly with Dynamic Assessment, students learn from engaging in

the assessment activities themselves.

Conclusion

In this chapter we have highlighted some of the contemporary approaches to second

language learning theory that view social interaction as a fundamental dimension of learning.

Taken together, these approaches are quite distinct from those that are more scripted, with little

opportunity for extemporaneous speech by students.

We have also suggested applications of social-interactionist approaches to language

learning, both inside and outside of classrooms, for teaching and assessment. Finally, our focus

here has been interaction in the learners’ L2 primarily for the purposes of L2 learning. We

realize that for many learners their L1 and additional languages (and other tools) may be used

very effectively to help support their L2 learning; these aspects, particularly in multilingual

contexts, are likely to receive even more attention in future theoretical accounts of language

learning in global contexts.

Discussion Questions

1. Consider your own past or present experience of learning (or teaching) a second

language. To what extent were you expected to--and able to--interact in the L2 as part of

12
 the learning process? With whom and how? What kind of activity or task was the most

conducive to productive interaction, in your view? Was this social interaction part of your

classroom instruction or did the interaction take place outside of class? What did you

learn from those interactions?

2. Imagine that are required to take an L2 proficiency test (e.g., either as a student, to

demonstrate your level of proficiency for placement purposes, or as a teacher, to

demonstrate that you are proficient enough to be a teacher of that L2). Instead of doing

the oral component of the test with just a tester/interviewer, you have been assigned to do

some oral tasks together with another unknown test-taker or two instead. What might be

some of the advantages and disadvantages of this interactive approach to assessment for

you, as a test-taker, on the one hand, or for the teachers or testers involved, on the other

hand?

3. A group of students in your second or foreign language class seek additional out-of-class

opportunities to practice their L2 with others. What kinds of interactions, resources, or

contexts would you recommend? Why? What might be some of the challenges in trying

to set up these interactions?

Recommended Readings

The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world.

Modern Language Journal, 100-S.

Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (Eds.) (2009). Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language

research in honor of Susan M. Gass. New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.

Markee, N. (Ed.). (2015). The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction. Malden, MA:

Wiley-Blackwell.

13
Mitchell, R., Tracy-Venture, N., & McManus, K. (Eds.) (2015). Social interaction, identity and

language learning during residence abroad. European Second Language Association.

Available at http://www.eurosla.org/eurosla-monograph-series-2/

References

Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A.

Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of

empirical studies (pp. 29-51). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Antón, M. (2015). Shifting trends in the assessment of classroom interaction. In N. Markee (Ed.),

The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 74-89). Malden, MA: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Atkinson, D. (Ed.) (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. New York:

Routledge.

Atkinson, D. (2014). Language learning in mindbodyworld: A sociocognitive approach to second

language acquisition. Language Teaching, 47(4), 467-483.

Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in

Japanese/English eTandem. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 41–71.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Snow, M.A. (Eds.). (2014). Teaching English as a second or

foreign language (4th ed.). Boston, MA: National Geographic/Heinle Cengage.

Duff, P., & Talmy, S. (2011). Second language socialization: Beyond language acquisition in

SLA. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to SLA (pp. 95-116). London:

Routledge.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

14
 Gan, Z. (2010). Interaction in group oral assessment: A case study of higher- and lower-scoring

students. Language Testing, 27, 585-602.

Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283-302.

Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Knight, S. M., & Schmidt-Rinehart, B. C. (2010). Exploring conditions to enhance student/host

family interaction abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 64–71.

Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J. P. (2014). The sociocultural perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36,

368–374.

Lantolf, J. P. & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the foreign language

classroom. A teacher's guide (2nd ed.). State College, PA: The Pennsylvania State

University Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Long, M. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.

Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 487-535).

Malden, MA: Blackwell.

McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (Ed.). (2013). Second language interaction in diverse

educational contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

15
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of

question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-97.

Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.).

London: Routledge.

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Hodder/Routledge.

Poehner, M. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL

Quarterly, 43(3), 471-491.

Rouhshad, A., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2015). The nature of negotiations in face-to-face

versus computer-mediated communication in pair interactions. Language Teaching

Research, 1–21.

Stockwell, G., & Harrington, M. (2013). The incidental development of L2 proficiency in NS-

NNS email interactions. CALICO journal, 20(2), 337-359.

Strong, G. (2009). Fieldtrips with Japanese student ethnographers. In A. Smith & G. Strong

(Eds.), Adult language learners: Context and innovation (pp. 117–125). Alexandria,

Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Second Languages.

Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). "New" mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched.

Modern Language Journal, 91, 820–836.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Winke, P. (2013). The effectiveness of interactive group orals for placement testing. In K.

McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational

contexts (pp. 247-268). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Zappa–Hollman, S., & Duff, P. (2015). Academic English socialization through individual

networks of practice. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 333–368

16