UNIT 9

Interactionist Theories
 1. Defining Interactionist Theories
*Lev Vygotsky is the main theorist associated with this theory.
*Interactionists use his model of Collaborative Learning (Shaffer, et al.
2002). -
the idea that conversations with older people can help
children both cognitively and linguistically.
*Brown concluded -The interactional function of language “serves
to ensure social maintenance.”
*Interactional function of language includes communicative contact
between and among human beings that allows them to:
• establish social contact &
• keep channels of communication open.
*Successful interactional communication requires
knowledge of all varieties of language, such as:
slang, jargon,
jokes, folklore,
cultural values,
politeness & formality expectations
as well as other keys to social exchanges between
people.
*In the interactionist theory, body and mind are seen as
interacting with one another such that one of them may
choose to control events.
*Example of how the body can affect the mind: when the
pain receptor in the body is activated after you have
pricked yourself with a pin. This will result in an experience
of pain that is experienced in our minds.
*Example of mind affecting body: when a person who is
trimming the plants in his or her garden, decides to cut a
certain plant, and then does so.
*According to this interactionist view, persons behave the way
they do as the result of:

a. either the body acting alone (as in breathing, and the

circulation of the blood);
b. or the body interacting with the mind (as one
intentionally holds one’s breath or lifts one’s hand).
*The Interactionists would argue that it is because of the
presence of ‘stuff’ in the universe, the material and the
mental, that sentences such as:
The idea of square is purple.
Happiness weighs 3 grams.
are meaningless when we take them to mean literally what is
stated.
In these sentences, the physical attributes (weight – 3 grams;
and colour – purple) of the material world are given to non-
physical mental entities (concepts – ideas; and mental states
– happiness) of the separate mental world.
 2. Stephen Krashen
Krashen is an expert in the field of linguistics, specializing in theories
of language acquisition and development. One of the most
controversial theoretical perspectives is found in these six main
hypotheses in Krashen's theory of L2 learning that were made
between 1977 and 1985:
1. Acquisition-learning Hypothesis
2. Monitor Hypothesis
3. Natural Order Hypothesis
4. Input Hypothesis
5. Reading Hypothesis
6. Affective Filter Hypothesis
 Krashen's Hypotheses
and
SL/FL classroom application
Krashen's Hypotheses
Explanation of Hypothesis Application for Teaching
1. The Acquisition-Learning hypothesis
There are two independent ways of developing According to this theory, the optimal
language ability. Acquisition involves the way a language is learned is
subconscious acceptance of knowledge where through natural communication. As
information is stored in the brain through the a second language teacher, the ideal
use of natural communication; this is the is to create a situation wherein
process used for developing L1. Learning, on language is used in order to fulfill
the other hand, is the conscious acceptance of authentic purposes. This in turn, will
knowledge ‘about’ a language (i.e. the grammar help students to ‘acquire’ the
or form). Krashen states that this is often the language instead of just ‘learning’ it.
product of formal language instruction. Krashen claims, learning CANNOT
become acquisition.
Krashen's Hypotheses
2. The Monitor hypothesis Application for Teaching
This hypothesis explains how acquisition and As an SL teacher, it will always be
learning are used; the acquisition system, a challenge to strike a balance
initiates an utterance, and the learning system between encouraging accuracy
‘monitors’ the utterance to inspect and correct and fluency in your students. This
errors. Krashen states that monitoring can balance will depend on numerous
make some contribution to the accuracy of an variables including the language
utterance but its use should be limited. He level of the students, the context
suggests that the ‘monitor’ can sometimes act of language use and the personal
as a barrier as it forces the learner to slow goals of each student. This
down and focus more on accuracy as opposed balance is also known as
to fluency. He thus claims, “fluency in L2 Communicative competency.
performance is due to what we have acquired,
not what we have learned.”
Krashen's Hypotheses
3. The Natural Order hypothesis Application for Teaching
According to Krashen, learners acquire According to this hypothesis, teachers
parts of language in a predictable order. should be aware that certain
For any given language, certain structures of a language are easier to
grammatical structures are acquired early acquire than others and therefore
while others are acquired later in the language structures should be taught
process. This hypothesis suggests that this in an order that is conducive to
natural order of acquisition occurs learning. Teachers should start by
independently of deliberate teaching and introducing language concepts that
therefore teachers cannot change the are relatively easy for learners to
order of a grammatical teaching sequence. acquire and then use scaffolding to
introduce more difficult concepts.
 Krashen's Hypotheses
4. The Input hypothesis Application for Teaching
This hypothesis suggests, language This hypothesis highlights the importance of
acquisition occurs when learners receive using the Target Language (TL) in the
messages that they can understand, a classroom. The goal of any language
concept also known as comprehensible programme is for learners to be able to
input. However, Krashen also suggests that communicate effectively. By providing as
this comprehensible input should be one much comprehensible input as possible,
step beyond the learner’s current language especially in situations when learners are
ability, represented as i + 1, in order to allow not exposed to the TL outside of the
learners to continue to progress with their classroom, the teacher is able to create a
language development. Input should never be more effective opportunity for language
so far beyond their reach that they are acquisition.
overwhelmed. It should also not be so close to their
current stage that they are not challenged at all.
 Krashen's Hypotheses
5. The Reading Hypothesis Application for Teaching
This hypothesis basically states that the more It is important to involve
we read in a 2L the greater our vocabulary will reading in the language
be. Free voluntary reading (FVR) claimed to be classroom to increase
the most powerful educational tool in knowledge of the language
language education. The Input Hypothesis and the way it is used in
clearly implied that massive amounts of real-life contexts.
reading is necessary because comprehensible
input is the cause of language acquisition, and
reading is a major source of comprehensible
input.
 Krashen's Hypotheses
6. The Affective Filter hypothesis Application for Teaching
This hypothesis portrays a 'screen' that is In any aspect of education it is always
influenced by emotional variables that can important to create a safe, welcoming
prevent learning. This hypothetical filter does not environment in which students can
impact acquisition directly, but rather prevents learn. In language education this may
input from reaching the language acquisition part be especially important since in order
of the brain. According to Krashen the affective to take in and produce language,
filter can be prompted by many different learners need to feel that they are able
variables including anxiety, self-confidence, to make mistakes and take risks. This
motivation and stress. Low motivation, low self- relates directly to Krashen’s hypothesis
esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to of the affective filter.
‘raise’ the affective filter to form a ‘mental block’
that prevents comprehensible input from being
used for acquisition.
 Krashen’s Input Hypothesis criticism
Unfortunately, L2 acquisition is not as simply defined as Krashen would like to
claim, and therefore, his assumptions have been hotly disputed:
1. Scholars sharply criticise Krashen’s rather fuzzy distinction between
subconscious (acquisition) and conscious (learning) processes.
2. A second criticism of Krashen’s views arose out of the claim that there is no
overlap between acquisition and learning.
3. A third difficulty of Krashen’s Input hypothesis is found in his explicit claim
in 1986 that “comprehensible input is the only causative variable in second
language acquisition.” In other words, success in an L2 or foreign language
can be attributed to input alone. This gives little credit to learners and their
own active engagement in the pursuit of language competence.
First of all we should distinguish between input and intake.
• Just imagine reading a book or listening to a conversation or watching
a movie – in any language. This is your input.
• But your intake is what you take with you over a period of time and
that you can latter ‘remember’. Intake is the subset of all input that
actually gets assigned to our long-term memory store.
• Second language learners are exposed to potentially large quantities
of input of which only a very little part becomes intake.
How does input convert to intake?
• Seliger (1983) offered an explanation that is widely accepted.
• In two studies, Seliger found that “learners who maintained high
levels of interaction in the L2, both in the classroom and outside,
progressed at a faster rate than learners who interacted little in the
classroom.”
• Such studies, coupled with a great deal of observation of successful
learners in the classroom, suggest that Krashen’s Input hypothesis
needs to be complemented by an ‘output hypothesis’ that gives
extensive credit to the role of the learner’s own production of the L2.
 THANKS!!

END OF UNIT 9
