Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.

1 - Juni 2011

pronominal reference” (p.265). They point out that task frequency plays an THE IMPORTANCE OF INPUT AND INTERACTION IN
important role in second language learning and that input-driven approach
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
“provides an explicit and readily testable account of language learning” (p.262).
This may indicate that particular language structure may impose visible effects on
language learning when it is provided explicitly and clearly through task
frequency. Ista Maharsi
As has been discussed, the role of input is considered as an important aspect Islamic University of Indonesia
in second language acquisition. However, it is important to note that many kinds of
input still need to be processed, activated through interaction and then reflected in
the output. Simplified input which is modified with active and productive ABSTRACT
interaction may encode the underlying meanings of language content. From this, The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition has become
the input may become the active input which is comprehensible and applicable to an unavoidably essential issue to discuss. Abundant research has examined
move towards the interaction. Hence, greater developmental gains could be what, how, when, and why input can keep up language acquisition. Many
achieved. theories are proposed and to some extent implemented and proved to be
effective. However, controversies around the role of input are also
It is also necessary to suggest that teachers and lesson planners need to
inevitable. This paper will propose the importance of input and interaction in
notice these conditions in order to initiate what is appropriate for learners. second language acquisition as were put forward and necessitated by many
Students, in this case, will be facilitated with a learning set that ease them to acquire researchers, how particular input might result in various intakes and how
a language in an effective way. Hence, teachers act as facilitators in learning and interaction could facilitate output.
acquiring language. In no chance at all teachers are allowed to dominate the
learning process. As for doing it, learners will be likely to learn less, passive and
Key words: input, interaction, second language acquisition
under pressure and thus acquisition is a matter of fantasy.

INPUT HYPOTHESIS AND THE BEHAVIOURISM

INTRODUCTION
The well known input theory is the one proposed by Krashen. In his theory,
comprehensible input is seen as a precondition for second language learning to Input, as well as interaction, is important to L1 as well as L2 acquisition.
take place. The hypotheses that Krashen proposes (1985) are that learners develop Research on input in L2 has significantly followed research on input in L1.
their language through understanding comprehensible input which contains i+1 or Whereas the relationship between input and interaction has also received sufficient
one level beyond their current competence, input can be turned into attention from researchers and how they are together facilitate output.
comprehensible input if it is simplified, speaking is not the cause of acquisition but Both input and interaction play similar importance in second language
it is the result of acquisition. According to his theory, an acquisition can be obtained acquisition process. It could be assumed that different treatment either to input or
when learners receive input which is comprehensible. In the next stage, learners interaction might affect the process of second language acquisition. More frequent
will need to change the input into intake. input without being followed by sufficient interaction may not help much the
Many scholars criticize Krashen's input hypothesis because of the second language acquisition. On the other hand, input which is modified
vagueness of measuring the competence level of learners. He does not provide the interactionally may result in better development of second language acquisition.

48 45
Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.1 - Juni 2011 Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.1 - Juni 2011

HOW INPUT INFLUENCES SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION The process of input to become intake is called the input processing in which
Input in L2 acquisition serves as 'an obligatory entry point' that strategies and mechanisms are involved to create “form-meaning connections”
consequently plays a very important role. Without it, L2 learners would not that will lead to acquisition. Input is considered as “the language that encodes
succeed in acquiring the language. Thus, various inputs of L2 acquisition will meanings.” Besides, input should contain “meaning to which the learner attends
presumably result in different output. Ellis (2003) proposes two aspects of input for its propositional content” (Vanpatten and Cadierno, 1993, p.46). This may
that influence L2 acquisition: input frequency and comprehensible input. Input, indicate that learners may be able to involve in the input-to-intake stage when they
which is accurate and intensive, will seem to result in better L2 acquisition. In understand what they are learning, and then they restructure the input they get by
comparison, less number and varieties might cause unsatisfactory L2 acquisition making association of meanings which will lead them to the content of the learned
(p. 269). In other words, the more input to L2 learners, the more they will appear in materials.
the output (Ellis, 2003; Mitchell and Myles, 2004). Yet, in reality, many factors In comparison, a research finding shows that the learners' attention to form
appear to influence L2 acquisition and to some extent become more complicated which is known as “visual input enhancement” (i.e. highlighting, bolding,
because input, output and interaction have cyclical cause and effect or 'chain capitalizing, underlining) seems to show different effects when implemented alone
reaction' one another. There is no certainty when one is done properly, the other or modified with other forms such as semantic elaboration, a focused production
will also be well obtained. Indeed, the process is not as simply as it seems. task, or activation of prior knowledge. When alone, visual input enhancement
An important theory of input in L2 acquisition proposed by Krashen (2004) merely results in “sensory detection” because of the highlighting but does not
is known as Input Hypothesis. The developed form of this input is that “exposure to facilitate integrative processing (Izumi, 2002, p.543). These complex aspects of
comprehensible input is both necessary and sufficient for L2 learning to take input in a particular step of language acquisition may give alternatives to various
place”. (p. 165). According to him, learners should be given a lesson which is “a strategies to enhance effective input that promotes second language acquisition.
little beyond their current level of competence”. Learners are also required to From this research, it can be assumed that the strategies of 'paying attention to
process the input through comprehension and one way to comprehend is through form' need to be accompanied with other productive and active activities.
simplification (p. 273). It is important to note that input needs to be processed to Accordingly, the process of converting input to intake will be eased by stimulus of
become intake. The problem is that not all input can become intake. According to input that becomes the stepping stage towards intake.
Corder (in Gass and Selinker, 2001), intake is the input which is “internalized” (p. Other studies about various input are conducted by Pica, Young, Doughty,
260). Similarly, Vanpatten and Cadierno (1993) propose that learners should Loschky, Ellis, Tanaka and Yamazaki about baseline input (the input when Native
convert input into intake and then again, change intake into acquired systems. In Speakers listen to other Native Speakers), premodified input (simplified input),
other words, input should be provided sufficiently in order L2 learning can interactionally modified input (modified input as a result of meaning negotiation)
progress. In particular, input should become intake in order to proceed to L2 (Ellis and He, 1999, p. 287). It is known that from various input, interactionally
acquisition. Besides, input should be comprehensible in that learners will not be modified input seems to work best, but not as effectively as when implemented to
able to improve when they find that the input is far beyond their mind. Conversely, young learners.
when the input is too easy, has been well-comprehended and become the part of the Harrington and Dennis (2002) investigate the input-driven in second
acquired system in the learners, the input will be likely to be considered as 'rubbish' language learning by referring to previous research findings proposed by many
which will not make learners progress but could cause frustration. Besides, input scholars. They propose two regularities that can be extracted from the input that is
should be given systematically in conformity with learners' stage of knowledge. called as “the simple statistical distribution of forms” such as collocations. The
More importantly, input cannot exist alone, because it will not provide anything to other regularity is indirect regularity that concern with “higher order of structural
language acquisition. Thus, interaction and output should follow the process. relations” from the input data such as “the long-distance dependencies governing

46 47
Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.1 - Juni 2011 Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.1 - Juni 2011

HOW INPUT INFLUENCES SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION The process of input to become intake is called the input processing in which
Input in L2 acquisition serves as 'an obligatory entry point' that strategies and mechanisms are involved to create “form-meaning connections”
consequently plays a very important role. Without it, L2 learners would not that will lead to acquisition. Input is considered as “the language that encodes
succeed in acquiring the language. Thus, various inputs of L2 acquisition will meanings.” Besides, input should contain “meaning to which the learner attends
presumably result in different output. Ellis (2003) proposes two aspects of input for its propositional content” (Vanpatten and Cadierno, 1993, p.46). This may
that influence L2 acquisition: input frequency and comprehensible input. Input, indicate that learners may be able to involve in the input-to-intake stage when they
which is accurate and intensive, will seem to result in better L2 acquisition. In understand what they are learning, and then they restructure the input they get by
comparison, less number and varieties might cause unsatisfactory L2 acquisition making association of meanings which will lead them to the content of the learned
(p. 269). In other words, the more input to L2 learners, the more they will appear in materials.
the output (Ellis, 2003; Mitchell and Myles, 2004). Yet, in reality, many factors In comparison, a research finding shows that the learners' attention to form
appear to influence L2 acquisition and to some extent become more complicated which is known as “visual input enhancement” (i.e. highlighting, bolding,
because input, output and interaction have cyclical cause and effect or 'chain capitalizing, underlining) seems to show different effects when implemented alone
reaction' one another. There is no certainty when one is done properly, the other or modified with other forms such as semantic elaboration, a focused production
will also be well obtained. Indeed, the process is not as simply as it seems. task, or activation of prior knowledge. When alone, visual input enhancement
An important theory of input in L2 acquisition proposed by Krashen (2004) merely results in “sensory detection” because of the highlighting but does not
is known as Input Hypothesis. The developed form of this input is that “exposure to facilitate integrative processing (Izumi, 2002, p.543). These complex aspects of
comprehensible input is both necessary and sufficient for L2 learning to take input in a particular step of language acquisition may give alternatives to various
place”. (p. 165). According to him, learners should be given a lesson which is “a strategies to enhance effective input that promotes second language acquisition.
little beyond their current level of competence”. Learners are also required to From this research, it can be assumed that the strategies of 'paying attention to
process the input through comprehension and one way to comprehend is through form' need to be accompanied with other productive and active activities.
simplification (p. 273). It is important to note that input needs to be processed to Accordingly, the process of converting input to intake will be eased by stimulus of
become intake. The problem is that not all input can become intake. According to input that becomes the stepping stage towards intake.
Corder (in Gass and Selinker, 2001), intake is the input which is “internalized” (p. Other studies about various input are conducted by Pica, Young, Doughty,
260). Similarly, Vanpatten and Cadierno (1993) propose that learners should Loschky, Ellis, Tanaka and Yamazaki about baseline input (the input when Native
convert input into intake and then again, change intake into acquired systems. In Speakers listen to other Native Speakers), premodified input (simplified input),
other words, input should be provided sufficiently in order L2 learning can interactionally modified input (modified input as a result of meaning negotiation)
progress. In particular, input should become intake in order to proceed to L2 (Ellis and He, 1999, p. 287). It is known that from various input, interactionally
acquisition. Besides, input should be comprehensible in that learners will not be modified input seems to work best, but not as effectively as when implemented to
able to improve when they find that the input is far beyond their mind. Conversely, young learners.
when the input is too easy, has been well-comprehended and become the part of the Harrington and Dennis (2002) investigate the input-driven in second
acquired system in the learners, the input will be likely to be considered as 'rubbish' language learning by referring to previous research findings proposed by many
which will not make learners progress but could cause frustration. Besides, input scholars. They propose two regularities that can be extracted from the input that is
should be given systematically in conformity with learners' stage of knowledge. called as “the simple statistical distribution of forms” such as collocations. The
More importantly, input cannot exist alone, because it will not provide anything to other regularity is indirect regularity that concern with “higher order of structural
language acquisition. Thus, interaction and output should follow the process. relations” from the input data such as “the long-distance dependencies governing

46 47
Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.1 - Juni 2011

pronominal reference” (p.265). They point out that task frequency plays an THE IMPORTANCE OF INPUT AND INTERACTION IN
important role in second language learning and that input-driven approach
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
“provides an explicit and readily testable account of language learning” (p.262).
This may indicate that particular language structure may impose visible effects on
language learning when it is provided explicitly and clearly through task
frequency. Ista Maharsi
As has been discussed, the role of input is considered as an important aspect Islamic University of Indonesia
in second language acquisition. However, it is important to note that many kinds of
input still need to be processed, activated through interaction and then reflected in
the output. Simplified input which is modified with active and productive ABSTRACT
interaction may encode the underlying meanings of language content. From this, The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition has become
the input may become the active input which is comprehensible and applicable to an unavoidably essential issue to discuss. Abundant research has examined
move towards the interaction. Hence, greater developmental gains could be what, how, when, and why input can keep up language acquisition. Many
achieved. theories are proposed and to some extent implemented and proved to be
effective. However, controversies around the role of input are also
It is also necessary to suggest that teachers and lesson planners need to
inevitable. This paper will propose the importance of input and interaction in
notice these conditions in order to initiate what is appropriate for learners. second language acquisition as were put forward and necessitated by many
Students, in this case, will be facilitated with a learning set that ease them to acquire researchers, how particular input might result in various intakes and how
a language in an effective way. Hence, teachers act as facilitators in learning and interaction could facilitate output.
acquiring language. In no chance at all teachers are allowed to dominate the
learning process. As for doing it, learners will be likely to learn less, passive and
Key words: input, interaction, second language acquisition
under pressure and thus acquisition is a matter of fantasy.

INPUT HYPOTHESIS AND THE BEHAVIOURISM

INTRODUCTION
The well known input theory is the one proposed by Krashen. In his theory,
comprehensible input is seen as a precondition for second language learning to Input, as well as interaction, is important to L1 as well as L2 acquisition.
take place. The hypotheses that Krashen proposes (1985) are that learners develop Research on input in L2 has significantly followed research on input in L1.
their language through understanding comprehensible input which contains i+1 or Whereas the relationship between input and interaction has also received sufficient
one level beyond their current competence, input can be turned into attention from researchers and how they are together facilitate output.
comprehensible input if it is simplified, speaking is not the cause of acquisition but Both input and interaction play similar importance in second language
it is the result of acquisition. According to his theory, an acquisition can be obtained acquisition process. It could be assumed that different treatment either to input or
when learners receive input which is comprehensible. In the next stage, learners interaction might affect the process of second language acquisition. More frequent
will need to change the input into intake. input without being followed by sufficient interaction may not help much the
Many scholars criticize Krashen's input hypothesis because of the second language acquisition. On the other hand, input which is modified
vagueness of measuring the competence level of learners. He does not provide the interactionally may result in better development of second language acquisition.

48 45
Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.1 - Juni 2011 Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.1 - Juni 2011

C h a m p a i g n , 2 0 1 2 ) . R e t r i e v e d f r o m way how to know the position of the learners' level in order to know the right time
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/34241 to give them one step higher level of input (Mitchell and Myles, 2004, p. 48).
Martinez-Flor, A. (2004). The effect of instruction on the development of Therefore, many theories that are proposed later seem to improve and give more
pragmatic competence in English as a foreign language context: A study alternatives on how second language can be acquired. Besides, controversies
based on suggestions. (Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Jaume I, Spain, among the input processing and the output are still debatable.
2 0 0 4 ) . R e t r i e v e d f r o m One of the controversies that is against Krashen's input hypothesis is the
www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/10438/martinez2.pdf?...1 behaviorist theory stating that the acquisition process can be controlled by
Martinez-Flor, A. & Alcon, E. (2007). Developing pragmatic awareness of providing learners with “input in the right-sized doses” and also providing the
suggestions in the EFL classroom: A focus on instructional effects. reinforcement of the practices (Ellis, 2003, p. 26). This contrasting view on the role
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 47-76. of input in second language acquisition has been widely discussed, yet there has
Nipaspong, P. & Chinokul, S. (2010). The role of prompts and explicit feedback in not been an agreement on how far input plays an important role in second language
raising EFL learners' pragmatic awareness. University of Sydney Papers in acquisition.
TESOL, 5, 101-146. Basically, the behaviorist theory accounts for the existence of stimuli and
Rasekh-Eslami, Z., Rasekh-Eslami, A., & Fatahi, A. (2004). The effect of explicit responses without paying too much attention to the cognitive process in the
metapragmatic instructions on the speech act awareness of advanced EFL learners' mind. They also emphasize on the feedback availability as the
learners. TESL-EJ, 8(2), 1-18. measurement of input manipulation, which is considered appropriate (Ellis, 2003,
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. p 243).
Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). As the controversies go on, it can be assumed that behaviorism seems to
New York: Oxford University Press. emphasize on the reinforcement or providing stimulus to obtain response. This
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trend and issues. Annual Review of view sees the consistency of giving what is assumed to be sufficient or at the right
Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310. doi: 10.1017/S0267190511000018. dose input then providing the follow up in terms of interaction. Therefore,
discussing on input only seems to be insufficient. To get better description and
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic
correlation, the discussion on interaction may also be posed as another important
competence. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language
aspect in second language acquisition.
teaching (pp.171-199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In K. R.
Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200-222). INTERACTION: THE INPUT FOLLOW-UP OR THE INPUT POP UP
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Interaction can not be separated from input and output in that interaction acts
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, (91- as the mediator or tools between the two terms. Given that interaction may occur at
112). the same time of input, the interaction process appears to be the practical tools for
Ward, N., Rafael, E., Bayyari A.Y.B., & Thamar, S. (2007). Learning to show learners to contextualize the input they get. Furthermore, the terms of input,
you're listening. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 385407. interaction and output may occur at a few distance of time that the process could be
Xiao-le, G. (2011). The effect of explicit and implicit instructions of request cyclical. A learner, for example, may get input because he/she interacts with either
strategies. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(1), 104-123 native speakers or non native speakers who speak a second language. Then, at no
time at all he/she has to response the stimuli by using the immediate knowledge or

44 49
Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.1 - Juni 2011 Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.1 - Juni 2011

input. The output, in this case, is the result of instant interaction which can be References
assumed as the 'activation of previous knowledge'. What is called by 'activation of Alcon, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL
previous knowledge' is that he/she might have known a little about the second context? System, 33, 417-435.
language, and then it is activated. The previous input that he/she had might not be
Alcon, E. & Guzman, J. (2010). The effect of instruction on learners' pragmatic
realized but it can emerge as a result of a sudden interaction.
awareness: A focus on refusals. International Journal of English Studies,
In a more well-planned second language acquisition, just as that of the 10(1), 65-80.
second language learning, the model of input can be presented and selected in order Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford:
to meet the needs of the target learners. As the above example is an immediate Oxford Univeristy Press.
input-interaction-output process, the well-prepared input-interaction-output may
Belz, J. A. (2007). The role of computer mediation in the instruction and
result in better second language acquisition. In comparison, the well-prepared
development of L2 pragmatic competence. Annual Review of Applied
process of giving input, facilitating interaction and thus producing output needs to
Linguistics, 27, 45-75.
be mapped and prior objective needs to be determined. This may be called the input
follow up (my own term) that shows the possible further steps in second language Bu, J. (2012). A study of the effects of explicit and implicit teachings on developing
acquisition. Whereas, the previous example can be called as the input pop up; this Chinese EFL learners' pragmatic competence. International Journal of
refers to the cyclical and immediate process of input, interaction and output. Language Studies, 6(3), 57-80.
Interaction or conversation seems to be an instrument to negotiate meaning. Cohen, A. D. (2003). The learner's side of foreign language learning: Where do
To negotiate means to respond properly to the questions which are given (Gass and styles, strategies, and tasks meet? IRAL, 41, 279-291.
Selinker, 2001, p. 272). A research finding shows that interaction that involves Fukuya, Y. (1998, October). Consciousness-raising of downgraders in requests.
meaning appears to help learners in L2 acquisition (Loschky in Mitchell and Paper presented at second language research forum, University of Hawaii,
Myles, 2004, p. 168). For example, nonnative speakers often produce Manoa.
inappropriate utterances. Native speakers, in this case, frequently modify the Fukuya, Y., & Clark, M. (2001). A comparison of input enhancement and explicit
utterances in order to become understandable and it may make the interaction instruction of mitigators. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language
keeps on going. Such interaction is, indeed, helpful for L2 learners to get closer to learning (pp. 111-130). Chicago: Division of English as an International
the model language of the native speakers. Through interaction, L2 learners Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
understand their competence in applying the knowledge they have learned. Gholamia, J. & Aghaib, H.K. (2012). The impact of explicit and implicit
instruction on Iranian EFL learners' production and recognition of language
INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS AND INTERACTIONIST function. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 2(9), 107-
131.
According to the interactionist theories, acquisition could be perceived as “a
Jernigan, J. (2012). Output and English as a second language pragmatic
product of the complex interaction of the linguistic environment and the learner's
development: The effectiveness of output-focused video-based instruction.
internal mechanisms, with neither viewed as primary” (Ellis, 2003, p. 243). While
English Language Teaching, 5(4), 2-14.
there are many interactionist theories, there are two views that are widely
discussed: the cognitive interactionists and the social interactionist. The cognitive Kasper, G. & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language.
theory pays more attention to the cognitive processes in the learner's internal Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
mechanisms, whereas the latter sees the importance of “verbal interaction” that is Lichtman, K. (2012). Child-adult differences in implicit and explicit second
language learning. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-

50 43
Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.1 - Juni 2011 Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.1 - Juni 2011

attention to main features of pragmatic such as, social context, functional language perceived to help learners proceed with the association of meanings. These two
use, and interaction, when they want to design and develop pragmatic teaching theories seem to point out the urgency of interaction in order to accomplish second
materials (Taguchi, 2011). Some materials and activities, such as: receptive-skill language acquisition.
tasks (e.g. listening to video or audio with pragmatic features) and productive- On the other hand, a well known hypothesis that relates to interaction is
skills tasks (e.g. structured conversations and Oral Discourse Completion Task Interaction Hypothesis, which is proposed by Long. This hypothesis can be seen as
(ODCT) are practically useful for teaching pragmatics. These tasks are available in the follow up of Krashen's input hypothesis. The interaction hypothesis concerns
textbooks focusing on the pragmatic skill development. with the talk between native speakers-native speakers and native speakers-non
Furthermore, technology tools recently have provided interesting materials native speakers. Accordingly, there could be many issues that emerge from the
for pragmatic teaching. This might be due to the main instructional features interaction. Native speakers-native speakers may be involved in a continuous talk
provided by technology tools (e.g. multimedia environment, interactive input and without obstacles, while native speakers-non native speakers might create a
simulation) which support the process of pragmatic teaching and learning in the problem of repetition, clarification, and confirmation (Mitchell and Myles, 2004).
classroom. For instance, implementing the feature of Computer-assisted language Thus, second language acquisition does require interaction as a means to proceed
learning (CALL), Ward et al. (2007) developed a computer application for Arabic from the input the learners get in order to obtain maximum acquisition or
learners to record their utterances, and this application then analysed the timing commonly called as 'native-like'.
and the frequency of recorded utterances and gave corrective feedbacks. Similarly, The intensive interaction between native speakers-non native speakers may
Utashiro and Kawai (2009) designed a computer-based course called result in better second language acquisition in that learners are sufficiently exposed
'DiscourseWare' and explored its effect on Japanese reactive tokens learning or to the target language. Moreover, the language learners who involve in
backchannel signals, such as sodesuka ('I see') and honto ('really'). The results of conversational interaction could be said to build the building blocks of language
these two CALL studies showed significant effects on learners' receptive and development (Long in Gass and Selinker, 2001). Therefore, it may be indicated
productive skills. Moreover, web sites that provide interactive multimedia lessons that learners can proceed to the interaction stage when they are certain that they
are also useful because EFL learners can watch video clips of conversations have got the language meanings or associate meanings from the interlocutor. This
containing oral speech acts explanations, some cultural tips, and exercises. is how an interaction may happen.
Intensive interaction, however, will seem to result in more automatic language
CONCLUSION learning that facilitates language acquisition. Learners who are exposed to
To sum up, even though implicit instruction is more practical to draw EFL particular language will build cognitive systems that can be activated any time
learners' initial attention to pragmatic features, the explicit pragmatic instruction is when a stimulus is provided. This issue relates to the fundamental notion in second
significantly more effective in both raising EFL learners' pragmatic awareness and language acquisition: automaticity and restructuring (Gas and Selinker, 2001).
developing their pragmatic performance. Some accessible potential instructional While automaticity has something to do with the linguistic knowledge, the
resources and materials are also available for teaching pragmatics in the restructuring refers to the “internalized representations as a result of new
classroom. Therefore, developing materials and activities to improve the learners' learning”. The more intensive interaction that involves cognitive and social
pragmatic performance is not a problem as long as the teachers are concerned on domains, the better the language performance and the closer to second language
some key elements of pragmatic competence. acquisition are.

42 51
Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.1 - Juni 2011 Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.1 - Juni 2011

CONCLUSION indicate any significant differences between the two groups in EFL learners'
The importance of input and interaction has been perceived to be necessary pragmatic competence. On the other hand, Martinez-Flor (2004) combined two
in second language acquisition. Theoretically, the 'right size and form' of input and implicit techniques, which were input enhancements and recasts, to examine the
the appropriate frequency of interaction will be likely to result in more effective effect of implicit and explicit teaching on the speech act of suggestions. Her study
second language acquisition. found that the implicit and explicit instruction did not illustrate any significance
differences on EFL learners' performance of suggestion production. Briefly, these
However, this paper does not discuss output which is also considered as
three studies have tried to show empirical evidence of the effect of implicit and
important as input and interaction. In practice, the three elements input, interaction
explicit instructions that positively contributed to ELF learners' pragmatic ability.
and outputsupport one another and may occur at the same time of learning. When
More specifically, implicit pragmatic instruction affects EFL learners' pragmatic
alone, the elements provide nothing for learners to acquire language but passive
competence development despite the insignificant result compared to the explicit
information that will remain static. As has been discussed, many research findings
instruction.
still show various influences of input and interaction and the extent to which they
promote L2 acquisition. Difficulties in providing sufficient representative data, Regarding whether the explicit instruction more effectively contributes to
limitation on particular potential influences on input and interaction have become adult EFL learners than the implicit instruction does, Lichtman (2012), however,
the major obstacles in similar research. However, those two elements are, indeed, found that there was no significant different between child and adult EFL learners
existent and have been proved prominent in L2 acquisition. when they received implicit and explicit instruction. As he conducted his two
comprised empirical studies, he compared the performance of child and adult EFL
learners in two different treatments. The first treatment was on a story-listening-
REFERENCES and-rewriting task, which adopted implicit knowledge, and a verb conjugation task
Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language which adopted explicit knowledge. In the second one, he manipulated the
nd
Pedagogy, 2 Edition, New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. instruction in which the artificial mini-language was taught explicitly and
Ellis, R. 2003, The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford explicitly for child and adult EFL learners. Based on the findings, he contended
University Press. that the shift from implicit learning in the childhood to explicit learning in
adulthood was not necessarily caused by age factor only. Rather, both implicit and
Ellis, R and He, X. 1999. The Roles of Modified Input and Output in the Incidental explicit instructions are able to affect any age to some extent. Thus, either child or
Acquistition of Word Meanings. Study of Second Language Acquisition, adult EFL learners can get benefits from implicit and explicit instruction on EFL
Vol. 21, p. 285-301. learning contexts.
Ellis, R. 1985 Understanding Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Gass, S. M. and Selinker, L. 2001. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory
Course, 2nd Edition, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Having discussed aforementioned studies, it can be seen that the instruction
is an essential aspect in raising EFL learners' pragmatic awareness and developing
Harrington, M and Dennis, S. 2002. Input-Driven Language Learning. Study of their pragmatic performance. The instructional materials either using implicit or
Second Language Acquisition, Vol. 24, p. 261-268. explicit approach are able to influence the development of EFL learners' pragmatic
Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: competence. Since the pragmatic competence attributes both linguistics and
Longman. sociocultural features in communicative speech acts, the teachers should pay close

52 41
Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.1 - Juni 2011 Journal of English and Education, Vol. 5 No.1 - Juni 2011

Further claim is that the explicit pragmatic instruction can address certain Mackey, A. 1999. Input, Interaction, and Second Language Development: An
EFL learners' repeated mistakes in their speech act production due to negative Empirical Study of Question Formation in ESL. Study of Second Language
pragmatic transfer. For example, when Indonesian EFL learners get a compliment Acquistition, Vol. 21, p.557-587.
from their friend about their appearance or performance in English, they tend to Mitchell, R. and Florence, M. 2004. Second Language Learning Theories, 2
nd

respond it by saying 'Oh, that's okay!' It can lead to breakdowns and confusion in Edition, New York: Oxford University Press.
interaction with native speakers. Since negative pragmatic transfer results in
Izumi, S. 2002. Output, Input Enhancement and the Noticing Hypothesis. Study of
confusion in EFL learners' communication, the teacher should directly clarify the
Second Language Acquisition, Vol. 24, p.541-577.
negative transfers from the first language (L1) to the target language (L2).
Otherwise, this makes EFL learners keep repeating the same mistakes. However, it Vanpatten, B. and Cadierno, T. 1993. Input Processing and Second Language
should be noted that the teacher should use a good strategy to give direct correction Acquisition: A Role for Instruction. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 77.
in order not to make the EFL learners stressful and shy when they want to speak up. No.1, p. 45-57.
Some research studies have investigated the effect of explicit and implicit teaching
by involving corrective feedbacks into the instruction (Takahashi, 2001;
Tateyama, 2001; Nipaspong, & Chinokul, 2010). By giving feedbacks in the
explicit instruction, the EFL learners find it useful since the teacher explicitly
correct the mistakes they make while they are using the language. Hence, the
explicit instruction can facilitate the teacher to correct EFL learners' mistakes in
their language production.

Implicit Pragmatic Instruction

In contrast, some studies have also been conducted to show how the implicit
instruction can be operationalised on pragmatic learning to focus on speech act
forms (Fukuya ,1998; Fukuya and Clark ,2001; and Martinez-Flor,2004). Fukuya
(1998) investigated the use of recasts as implicit feedback on EFL learners' request
acts production. The author implemented a technique of interaction enhancement,
such as demonstrating a smiley face to reflect a correct response and a sad face to
show an error response to some pragmatic elements like pragmalinguistic and
sociopragmatic errors. Besides showing a sad face to show an error response, this
technique also included repetition of learners' inappropriate sentences with rising
intonation. The results revealed that this technique was useful even though it was
not significantly effective. In similar fashion, Fukuya and Clark (2001) applied a
technique of input enhancement to get EFL learners' attention to the target forms of
speech act. While explicit group learners received the explicit instruction on
sociopragmatic elements of request mitigators, the request mitigator
enhancements was provided to implicit group learners. The findings did not

40 53