Introducing native speakers in the classroom

A paper on interaction, negotiation of meaning and feedback between

Native and Non-Native Speakers

1|Paper on Key Issues in SLT

 1. Introduction

It is widely assumed that interaction between Native and Non-Native

speakers has a positive effect on input understood by the learner. This primary

data for second language acquisition (SLA) is also called “intake” (Corder 1967).

It is also widely assumed that Native Speakers (NSs) seek to adjust to the

interactional set up of conversation (Long, 1980, 1982, 1983). In this paper, we

investigate the relevance of introducing, in addition to the instructor; more

Native Speakers in the classroom, arguing that it would be highly beneficial for

the L2 learners to interact with same age NSs. Researchers have found that NSs

use a “simplified” kind of language which has shorter utterances, reduced

syntactic complexity, and privileges high frequency lexical items and idioms

(Arthur et al. 1980; Freed 1978, among others). In the presence of Non-native

speakers with very low level of proficiency, NSs use also a simplified speech that

can be ungrammatical. When it happens NSs suppress articles or copula and/or

inflectional morphology (Ferguson 1975; Meisel 1977, Long 1980, 1982, 1983).

We want to show that this “simplified talk”, used by NSs interacting with Non-

native Speakers (NNSs) in an environment controlled by an instructor, helps

NNSs to get a better quality input and acquire a second language more rapidly.

This paper will be following a line of hypothesis about second language

acquisition recognized as interactionist: the so called Interaction Hypothesis

(Long, 1996; Gass, 1997), which argues that pair or group activities in the

classroom trigger interactional modifications and intense negotiation between

L2 learners and are far better than teacher-centred classical instruction. (e.g.

2|Paper on Key Issues in SLT

Doughty & Pica, 1986). It also argues that these modifications paired with

feedback help the L2 learners to notice and process data that they could have

missed otherwise. We argue that what learners accomplish through interactive

discourse with other speakers in the classroom, generally other L2 learners, can

be maximized by practising with Native Speakers. Following what Lee and

VanPatten (2003) argue about the absolute necessity of putting L2 learners in

an environment where they have to manage interaction and negotiate

meaning, we show that NS-NNS interaction and negotiation, carefully managed

by an instructor-architect, fulfils and maximises all the steps of acquisition of

the Interactional Hypothesis.

The structure of this paper will be as follow. Section 1 introduces the aims

and scopes of the paper. Section 2 shows the differences of perception between

L2 learners and the instructor in the classroom and lead us to accept the

presence of NSs in order to address some of these issues. In section 3 we draw

a theoretical approach in which we use the Interactional Hypothesis to make

predictions about learners’ performances. Section 4 shows how the NS-NNS

conversations fulfil these predictions. In section 5 we create some examples of

good practice in the classroom using NS-NNS interaction and design some

tasks. Finally, section 6 includes the general conclusions.

2. Instructor/L2 learner’s perceptions

Why bother introducing Native/Non-Native interaction in the classroom if

there is generally a native speaker in the classroom: the instructor? Since the

80’s, the role of the instructor moved from a very traditional approach, teacher-

centred knowledge transmitting classroom, also called “the Atlas complex” by

Finkel and Monk (1983) in which the interaction learners/teacher was minimal,

to an innovative one totally student-centred which transformed the instructor

3|Paper on Key Issues in SLT

into a resource person (Lee, Van Patten, 1995:13), into an architect, a builder

and co-worker which purpose is to create the conditions in which learning of a

L2 will be possible. This “effective approach” follows a guideline that

recommends the creation and the completion of communicative tasks which

involve interpretation, expression and negotiation of meaning in speaking,

reading and writing activities where the meaning is emphasised over form and

the students are exposed to comprehensible input; where the grammar

teaching uses a variety of enhancement techniques. The instructor-architect is

also responsible for the creation of various types of activities such as role-plays

and communicative tasks using real life materials which encourage the learners

to negotiate meaning (Benati, 2012:45).

But even in such a context where good instruction is expected, the way

students and instructor see the learning process seems to be quite different. A

study by Nunan (1989) identified a “hidden agenda” which shows that L2

learners try to avoid communicative tasks (i.e. pair work) and are keener on

studying formal language points, pronunciation practice and error-correction

over more innovative techniques. Another study by Peacock (1998) discovered

that 66% of students “believe that learning a language is mostly a matter of

learning a lot of grammar rules”. The conflicting teacher/learner perceptions of

L2 learning activities can unveil some interesting differences on the prominence

of grammar and pair work, for instance (Hawkey 2006:243). These “many

mismatches between the beliefs and attitudes of learners and the practices of their

teachers” (Nunan, 2000:4) is useful and may have implication for language

learning and teaching.

One of them, we believe, and we’ll try to argue in its favour in this paper,

is that introducing Native speakers (NS) in the classroom will enable the

instructor-architect to maximize the language acquisition of L2 learners,

particularly by focusing on negotiation, speech modification and error

4|Paper on Key Issues in SLT
correction techniques. Following Peacock’s findings about conflicting

perceptions between L2 learners and instructors, the presence of NSs in the

classroom might help the students to get what they seem to want, that, is,

more corrective feedback.

Early interaction researchers have unveiled that the language used to

address L2 learners differ from the one used to address native speakers. This

particular type of interaction has been referred to as modified input. (VanPatten

& Williams, 2007:177)

The strong response in favour of error correction highly valued by

students but with a low teachers’ rating in Nunan’s study, can be address in

classroom activities through communicative tasks between Native and Non-

native (NNS) speakers. We’ll show that even if activities involving learner-to-

learner communication for negotiation of comprehensible input are useful and

provide the necessary condition for L2 acquisition, NS-NNS conversation creates

modifications of the interactional structure of conversation and are more

important than input modification per se (Long, 1982).

3. Theoretical framework

3.1. The Interaction Hypothesis

Before going further down the line regarding NS-NNS interaction in the

classroom, we’ll set up the theoretical framework in which this analysis will be

possible. Because our topic focuses on interaction and negotiation of meaning

between native and non-native speakers, we will first focus on the so called

“Interaction Hypothesis” (Long, 1996; Gass, 1997) which is interested in

conversation between learners and others (peer-to-peer or Native/Non-native)

and how these exchanges might affect acquisition. It examines the relationship

5|Paper on Key Issues in SLT

between “communication and acquisition and the mechanisms that mediate

between them” (Gass, 2003). The Interaction Hypothesis is based on the

importance of comprehensible input coupled with interactional modifications in

order to make the input more comprehensible (Benati, 2012:93). It is also

referred to as the Input, interaction, and output model (Block, 2003) and

Interaction Theory (Carroll, 1999)1 and it is viewed as a “model that dominates

current SLA research” by Ramírez (2005:293) and as the “dominant interactionist

paradigm” by Byrnes (2005:296).

3.1.1. Input

Input is what learners are exposed to when learning a language. “Input is

the sine qua non of acquisition” (VanPatten & Williams, 2007:177). Krashen

(1982) put forth the Input Hypothesis in which it is claimed that the only way to

acquire a language is through exposure to input. Even if the Monitor theory from

which the Input hypothesis was extracted is no longer recognize as a good

enough explanation for SLA, Van Patten & Benati (2010:96) say that “it is fair to

say that all major linguistic and psycholinguistic theories of SLA in use today assume

some version of the Input Hypothesis”.

3.1.2. Interaction

Interaction, can easily refer to as the conversations exchanged between

the L2 learners and peers or native speakers. This is a basic and crucial aspect

of acquisition yet L2 learners receive constant information about the

1 As Pica points out, “as a perspective on language learning, [the Interaction Hypothesis] holds none
of the predictive weight of an individual theory. Instead, it lends its weight to any number of theories.”
(Pica, 1998:10)

6|Paper on Key Issues in SLT

correctness and incorrectness (negative evidence2) of their utterances. L2

learners receive negative evidence “through interactional feedback that occurs

following problematic utterances”.(VanPatten & Williams, 2007:178) This

interactional feedback helps the L2 learners to manage the errors produced in

their conversations. We reproduce Gass (1997) model in Figure 1, in Annex 1.

As argued above, the Interaction hypothesis is input dependent and claims

that learners drawn into interaction will acquire the L2 at a faster pace through

noticing (which is not just input but “good input”) and attention (Gass,

2003:224). The way they are to notice things include on the one hand, Input

modification, that is, adjustments that the interlocutor makes in his/her speech

when the learner’s comprehension is perceived as deficient and on the other

hand, feedback, which is provided in some way by the interlocutor when the

learner has produce something non-native-like (VanPatten & Benati, 2010:99).

3.1.3. Feedback

The following short dialogue (1) is extracted from VanPatten & Benati (op.cit:99)

where Bob

is a native speaker and Tom a non-native one:

(1)

Bob: So where’s Dave?

Tom: He Vacation.

Bob: He’s on vacation?

Tom: Yes. On vacation.

2 Positive evidence, put simply, is the input L1 and L2 learners hear in communicative settings.

7|Paper on Key Issues in SLT

Bob’s sentence: “He’s on vacation” is called a confirmation check which rectifies

Tom’s non-native like utterance “He vacation”. This type of “conversational

feedback” doesn’t cut the flow of the interaction, and it is generally not seen as

an error correction (also called direct negative evidence which interrupt the

flow of the conversation) by the learner but gives him an insight about the

language he’s producing.

Another “confirmation check” can be recast3. When the L2 learner has

produced a wrong utterance in the target language, his/her interlocutor

confirms what he intended to say. See the following interaction (2):

(2)

NNS: I hate when he call me at night.

NS: Oh, when he calls you at night.

NNS: Calls me.

NS: Do you always answer the phone?

In this dialogue, by recasting, the native speaker provides the right form

to the non-native speaker. Again, this way provides an instant feedback which

does not cut the flow of the conversation.

They are some more devices (also called “repair”). The first one is

“comprehension checks”. See (3):

(3)

NS: … then, cross the street and take the 775 bus…

NNS: The bus…

3 ”Recast: (a rephrasing of an incorrect utterance using a correct form while maintaining the original
meaning)” (VanPatten&Williams, 2007:182)

8|Paper on Key Issues in SLT

 NS: The 775, do you understand?

NNS: Yes, 775.

In this example, the utterance “Do you understand?” is used as a

comprehension check by the native speaker who confirms that he understood

the bus number.

Another repair is “clarification request” (I’m sorry. I didn’t understand or

Say it again,

What did you say? or What was that? etc.) The following conversation (4) is

taken from McDonough, (2005):

(4) Modified Input

NNS: What happen for the boat?

NS: What?

NNS: What’s wrong with the boat?

All such devices provide elements to the learner and help him/her to

perceive and process more efficiently.

3.1.4. Output

Output refers to the language speakers produce during conversation. The

Output hypothesis, also known as the Comprehensible Output Hypothesis (Swain’s,

1985, 1993, 1995, 1998, 2005) is a model that argues that output is as important

as input for acquisition. Swain claimed that: “Output may stimulate learners to

9|Paper on Key Issues in SLT

move from the semantic, open-ended non deterministic, strategic processing

prevalent in comprehension to the complete grammatical processing needed for

accurate production. Output, thus, would seem to have a potentially significant role

in the development of syntax or morphology” (1995:128)

A good example of a learner moving from semantic to syntactic use of

language is (4), renamed here (5):

(5) Modified Input

NNS: What happen for the boat?

NS: What?

NNS: What’s wrong with the boat?

The reformulation of the utterance following the clarification request

from the NS, shows that the NNS was “pushed” to reformulate favouring a

better acquisition.

Another function of production is that L2 learners can hypothesise with it.

It has been argued that learners test their own utterances as shown in (6) (the

example is extracted from Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000):

(6) (INT = Interviewer)

NNS: poi un bicchiere

Then a glass

INT: un che, come?

A what, what?

NNS: bicchiere

Glass

10 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
 NNS Recall Comment: “I was drawing a blank. Then I thought of a vase but

then I thought that since there was no flowers, maybe it was just a big glass.

So, then I thought I’ll say it and see.”

Another function of output is to help automaticity, “which refers to the

routinization of language” (VanPatten & Williams, 2007:180). Automatic

processes were defined by (McLaughlin, 1987:134) as a result of: “consistent

mapping of the same input to the same pattern of activation over many trials”. In

the same field, more recent research unveiled the importance of the use of

formulaic sequences, for example, between native and non-native speakers,

giving non-native speakers the opportunities of enjoying “the same type of

processing advantage as natives” (Conklin & Schmitt, 2008).

3.1.5. Negotiation of meaning

Negotiation of meaning (that provides indirect negative evidence) is a

concept which interestingly summed the components cited previously (Input,

Interaction, and output) and it happens when there is a communication

breakdown (VanPatten & Benati, 2012:116), a mismatch between the speaker’s

output and what the listener is understanding. Parts of Long’s (1996:451)

famous explanation among scholars of this concept is reproduced below:

“…negotiation for meaning triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or

more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input,

11 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
 internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in

productive ways”

“… Negative feedback obtained during negotiation work or elsewhere may be

facilitative of L2 development, at least for vocabulary, morphology, and

language-specific syntaxe…” (p.144)

As mentioned above, researchers are divided about the real effects of

Indirect negative evidence on acquisition but the positive aspect of it is that it

does not interrupt the flow and it’s perceived as increasing salience of certain

grammatical features.

4. Speaking between NS and NNS

For the purpose of this paper, and what’s concerning Input, we will

mainly focus on Conversational input, that is “the language L2 learners hear in

the context of some communicative exchange” (VanPatten, 2003:27) as opposed to

Nonconversational input that is language that the L2 learner hear but in a non-

interactional way (watching television, listening to radio or attending a lecture).

When a L2 learner is immersed in a communication exchange with a peer

or a native speaker, s/he is receiving, processing and producing information

(Benati, 2012:89). These activities involves two sorts of competence, first,

linguistic and second, communicative (Hymes, 1972).

Linguistic competence is a very wide and complex concept that VanPatten

& Benati (2010: 74) describe the following way: “is not a list or set of rules and

grammatical forms, but instead a complex interaction of abstracts constraints and

principle of language that interact to make sentence look the way they look to us.”

12 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
 It is now established that the ability to speak in another language calls for

the development of communicative skills (Bygate, 1987, 2001). The skills

involved in oral language and oral processing are different from the ones used

in writing and reading. Speaking involves the reception, the processing and the

production of information through an interactive process. It calls for linguistic

competence which is a necessary requirement for anyone wanting to learn a

language. For instance, it involves correctly pronouncing words, using grammar

and vocabulary. But Communicative competence which deals with the ability to

understand ways language is produced is also absolutely necessary 4.

Communicative competence is a complex system where many parts interact

with each other. See figure 3.1 below that shows how “it is interaction between

knowledge and language use in context that characterises communicative language

use” (Benati, 2012:90)

FIGURE 4.1 Communicative competence. Benati (2012:92) adapted from

Bacham and Palmer (1966:66-73)

Communicative competence

Language competence Strategic competence

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Organisational Pragmatic goal setting Assessment Planning

Competence Competence

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Grammatical Textual Functional Sociolinguistic

Nowadays it is understood that the best way to help second language

learners developing their oral and listening skills is to create and develop tasks
4 For more information on Communicative competence, see Savignon (1983) and Lee &
VanPatten (1995:143)

13 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
in which learners are engaged in comprehension, negotiation and expression of

meaning (Benati, 2012:88). Focusing on interaction between Natives and Non-

native speakers in the classroom as one of the tools used by the

instructor/architect is a contribution to a concern expressed by Lee & VanPatten

(1995) which is that ”language in the classroom need not to be limited to

manipulation of forms, no matter how meaningful or purposeful those exercises are.

We must move from structured input and output practices to more open-ended

types of communicative activities”.

Yet our aim is to develop L2 learner communicative competence in the

classroom. Open-ended types of communicative activities can be more

profitable for L2 learners when they are in contact with Native speakers:

1) Native speakers can increase learners talk time. They have to be

considered like tools under the absolute control of the instructor-architect in

order to avoid intimidating and overwhelming L2 learners. One of the issues of

NNS-NNS interaction activities in the classroom is that L2 learners use their L1

to clarify problems. With a NS as an interlocutor, this “wasted time” is avoided

and all the adjustments and negotiations are in the target language.

2) NS presence in the classroom can help to build learners responsibility

and independence and can contribute to motivation. We believe that both NS

and NNS must have something in common (age, socio-cultural tastes, etc.) in

order to set up a creative and motivating atmosphere. In these conditions,

speaking tasks should give a better quality negotiation of meaning and

opportunities for interaction. The presence of native speakers in the classroom

will help to create an environment with real-life communication.

4.1. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation

14 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
 It is now widely assumed that conversations between NS and NNS are of

a special nature. Long (1982) argued that modifications of the interactional

structure of conversation are more important than input modifications. These

modifications in interaction are, for instance: “strategies, which serve to avoid

conversational trouble, and tactics, which are used to repair the discourse when

trouble occurs”.

The research in this field reports that NS use a simplified language when

communicating with NNS. These simplifications involve shorter utterances,

simpler syntactic structures and avoidance of idiomatic expressions and/or the

use of high frequency vocabulary. This “foreigner talk” (Ferguson, 1971) can be

ungrammatical when the NNS has a very low level of proficiency and might be

efficient enough to make input more comprehensible (but it’s not proven

empirically). Even if this “foreigner talk” seems to facilitate L2 acquisition, Long

(1982:127) argued that NS make adjustments to the interactional structure of

the conversation. The following example (7) is Long’s:

(7)

NS: What’s the boy name?

NNS: Uh?

NS: The boy, what’s his name?

In this example of interaction, the NS reordered the forms for the NNS. In

other words, s/he broke down the first utterance, (too complex) into two

utterances, easing the syntactic complexity for the NNS. From this example, it is

important to underline the fact that for a better analysis of interactional

adjustments, the participation of the NNS has to be taken into account for

identification of turns in conversation. Without turns in conversation the devices

15 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
showed precedently (repairs, confirmation and comprehension checks,

clarification requests, etc.) couldn’t be possible and the acquisition would be

more problematic for the L2 learner. Even if some kind of interactional

adjustment in NNS-NNS conversations (monitored by an instructor-architect) is

possible in the classroom; it’s not comparable to a conversation with a NS and,

for the purpose of our paper, we recall that the NS-NNS interaction in the

classroom might be more comprehensible for the L2 learner because, NS seem

to modify interaction for two purposes: (1) to avoid trouble in the conversation

and (2) to repair the discourse when trouble occurs (Long 1982:131). We share

what Long (1982:132) proposes in his article, that native speakers “tend to

govern the way they conduct entire conversations, and primarily decide what is

talked about (conversational topic), but affect how topic are treated, too.” These

conversational strategies are coupled with tactics for discourse repair which are

used by the NS when the utterances in the conversation are not native like. See

below the table (8) representing these devices5.

(8)

Devices used by native speakers to modify the interactional structure of NS-NNs

conversation

__________________________________________________________________________________

Strategies (S) Tactics (T)

(for avoiding trouble) (for repairing trouble)

__________________________________________________________________________________

S1 Relinquish topic-control T1 Accept unintentional topic-

switch

S2 Select salient topics T2 Request clarification

S3 Treat topic briefly T3 Confirm own comprehension

S4 Make new topics salient T4 Tolerate ambiguity

5 From Long (1982:132)

16 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
S5 Check NNS’s comprehension

__________________________________________________________________________________

Strategies and Tactics (ST)

(for avoiding and repairing trouble)

__________________________________________________________________________________

ST1 Use slow pace ST4 Decompose topic-comment

constructions

ST2 Stress key words ST5 Repeat own utterances

ST3 Pause before key words ST6 Repeat other’s utterances

It can be argued that the instructor-architect can control the strategies (S1

to S3) and choose the topic for a speaking task but the NNS-NNS conversation

will lack what’s called Implicit Willingness, that is, the propensity from native

speaker to talk about whatever the learner is comfortable with (Long,

1982:132). See Long’s example in (9):

(9)

NS: Are the islands the same – do they look same? … as Japan as. The
country in Japan? Are the houses, for example, are the houses the same
on Osima… as say in the country… Sapporo or (Akairo)? Do the people
talk the same or do the houses look the same?... Or are the trees the
same?

This kind of or-choice questions (Hatch, 1978), helps the NNS to manage

the conversation offering him/her a wide range of topics within the topic, or

bunches of easy questions in which s/he will be able to peak.

17 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
 In summary, the content of table (8) gives a clear view of the richness of a

NS-NNS conversation compares with a peer-to peer one. For our purpose, we

can argue that NS-NNS conversation:

a) can increase learners talk time. By using or-choice questions, NS, give

more opportunities of interaction to the NNS. This could lead to more abrupt

topic-shifts than the NS-NS conversations (Long, 1983) and will force the

instructor-architect to find ways to monitor more closely the conversation in the

classroom. Nevertheless, Long (1983:181) argues that NNS willingly accept

unintentional abrupt topic-switches when a breakdown occurs in Foreigner Talk

Discourse (FTD).

b) FTD helps to build L2 learners’ responsibility and independence and

can contribute to motivation through Relinquish topic-control and or-choice

among other Strategies and Tactics. Hatch (1978) discovered that these

strategies make NNS’ participation easier, “by containing the answer to the

question”, as shown in (10)6:

(10)

NS: Well what are you what are you doing in the United States? … Are

you just studying? Or do you have a job? Or…

NNS: No I have job

c) FTD gives a better quality negotiation of meaning and opportunities for

interaction and helps to create in the classroom an environment with real-life

communication. It’s been well documented that NS in FTD prefer questions over

statements (Freed, 1978; Long, 1980; Scarcella & Higa 1981). This helps the NNS

to engage in conversation answering yes/no questions making her task easier.

6 The example is Hatch’s.

18 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
Questions work as comprehension check, or clarification requests and

confirmation checks. These three kinds of questions “occur statistically

significantly more frequently in FTD than in NS-NS conversation” (Long 1980).

5. Engaging with the L2 learners in the classroom

Oral communicative practice such as ability to manage interaction and

engaging in the negotiation of meaning is the opposite of traditional

approaches. Traditional oral tasks are output-oriented drills, that is, exercises

oriented towards mechanical repetition in which the L2 learner do not have to

understand what s/he is doing in order to finish the exercise. These activities

lack focus on meaning and don’t involve any exchange of unknown information

(Lee & VanPatten, 1995:119). Lamendella (1977) questioned in his work the

effectiveness of drilling practises arguing that the neural networks involved in

such activities are different from those which relate form with meaning. In

other words, the tasks are performed without thinking. It is now widely

assumed that drilling exercises have no theoretical support. Lee & VanPatten

(1995:120) go even further and say that “mechanical practise is obsolete, based on

shaky theoretical constructs tied to habit-formation theory”.

We believe that oral communicative practises in the classroom are, so far,

the best way to develop L2 learners’ communicative competence. We also think

that the time allocated to learners’ talk in the classroom has to be important.

The topics used in oral tasks must be interesting, relevant and keep the

motivation and attention of the learners very high. We also argued that the

main focus of the instructor-architect is to create the best environment possible

in which L2 learners will be able to acquire the target language. The aim of our

paper is to show that introducing same age native speakers in the classroom

can be beneficial for the L2 learners and can provide a great help to the

19 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
instructor who normally must address issues related with the participation of L2

learners in conversations. Among these issues is, for instance, the shame that

L2 learners can feel trying to use the target language (possibly because they

don’t feel confident with their pronunciation or because they are shy) or several

kinds of worries about making mistakes, fearing criticism and have nothing to

say. We believe that introducing native speakers in the classroom (in the

proportion of 1 in 4 or 5, dividing the class in several groups in which a native

speaker will be engaging the L2 Learners) will give the instructor better

opportunities to escape from traditional practises and will push L2 learners to

engage in real conversations with people of their age, sharing interesting and

familiar topics, using they own experience and knowledge, escaping form

“displayed questions” for which they already know the answers. (Benati, 2012:95-97)

The already good practise which is the creation of groups in the

classroom in order to get learners feeling less “at risk”, pushing them towards

more independence and initiative can be maximized, we believe, by the

presence of same age native speakers. It is obvious that the instructor will have,

more than ever, to carefully organise the activities in order to avoid

overwhelming the L2 learners with too much and too complex input. In these

conditions, learners’ motivation should be boosted. Introducing native speakers

in the group or pair tasks will equally force the learners to keep talking in the

target language. Their speaking time will increase considerably. On the one

hand, in tasks involving negotiation of meaning with the native speakers, L2

learners will be exposed to negative feedback. On the other hand, the

instructor-supervisor will be able to provide some positive feedback on learners’

performances.

Regarding more precisely the group-pair work, the instructor will have to

train the native speakers, providing them with clear information about their

objective in each task. For example, they will have to monitor the participation
20 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
of each learner in the tasks. In other words, the same age NS will have to

assume the role of resource person within the group. The instructor will have to

set up with the NS and the learners the range of real-life topics that will be used

in the tasks. This will facilitate the development of learners’ oral skills thanks to

useful collaboration and great motivation.

The instructor-architect should develop with the “tool-native speakers”

goal oriented tasks, that is, activities that involve group or pair work with a very

clear objective and tangible result. In our following examples, we will ask the L2

Learners to make, first, a list of items and then, to do a drawing. The instructor

and the NSs have to make sure that all the data needed for these tasks will be

gathered through interaction and production speech.

The design of our tasks is going to be based on criteria by Lee (2000:35):

a) identify a desired information outcome; b) break down the topics into

subtopics; c) create and sequence concrete tasks for learners to do; d) build in

linguistic support. An example is provided in (11):

(11) Target language: French

Task: Exchange information. Vocabulary: clothing and accessories / colours.

Grammar: place of adjectives (colour and size adjectives) and questions.

STEP 1. Make a list of what you are wearing (clothes and accessories). Using the

chart below, fill in at least six items (three for the top part of the body and three

for the low/down part of the body). Include information about colours, size and

range of price.

Me Classmate 1 Classmate 2

Vêtements

21 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
 (haut)

Vêtements

(bas)

STEP 2. Now sit back to back with 2 of your classmates and try to guess what

they are wearing (type of clothes and colours). Ask them specific questions

about colours and size. For example, to Classmate 1: “Tu portes un pantalon

rouge” (You are wearing red trousers). Or to classmate 1 and 2: “Vous portez des

jeans bleus” (You are wearing blue jeans). Write all the positives answers in the

chart.

STEP 3. Now interview your classmates. Ask them what their favourite clothes

are (thinking as well of your favourite ones). Do they wear one of them or

several today? If not, for which occasion do they wear them? Then contrast and

compare the answers.

STEP 4. Using the information gathered from steps 1,2 and 3, create two charts

which will compare and contrast your findings. The first one will contain

true/false questions (2 or 3) and the second one multiple choice questions

(another 2 or 3 questions).

22 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
 The tasks showed in (11), push L2 learners to solve problems and resolve

information gaps. They seek and share information and, in the process, are

involved in a very tight interaction. The types of activities designed in (11)

involve tasks that Littlewood (1981:22) sees as crucial in the process of sharing

information. In our proposed activities, learners have to discover some missing

data about their peers (information gap). The unrestricted collaboration

between learners pushes them towards the absolute necessity of completing

the task providing good data and seeking to extract as the result of interaction

the correct information.

We believe that the involvement of NS in the completion of the tasks will

enrich communication opportunities for NNS. For example, within the

restriction imposed on the L2 learner, the NS will use quite a lot of formulaic

sequences, among others: signpost discourse organization, like, on the other

hand, for example, at the time, of course, etc. (Conklin & Schmitt, 2008) or one-

word fillers, such as eh, well, wait, sorry, again, etc. (Sorhus, 1977) in order to

complete their own share of the tasks. In the process, this will benefit the NNS.

Researchers suggest that between 1/3 to half of the language exchanged is

composed by formulaic elements (Howarth, 1998; Erman & Warren 2000; Foster

2001). Conklin & Schmitt (2008:73) believe that “it is becoming increasingly

obvious that much of the communicative content of language is tied to these phrasal

expressions”.

Another problem solving set of tasks involving pair or group work could

be based on what Littlewood (1981) call functional communication task. This

task gives learners a lot more freedom. The restrictions are very limited and

give way to a richer communication. See in (12):

(12)

Target language: French

23 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
Task: Exchange information. Vocabulary: clothing and accessories / colours.

Grammar: place of adjectives (colour and size adjectives) and questions.

STEP 1. Make a list of what you are wearing (clothes and accessories). Using the

chart below, fill in at least six items (three for the top part of the body and three

for the low/down part of the body). Include information about colours and size.

MOI

Vêtements (haut)

Vêtements (bas)

STEP 2. Dress the silhouette on the left (A). Imagine all the characteristics (man,

woman, hair, fashion, etc.) and kind of clothes. Use colours and don’t forget to

draw some accessories.

24 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
A B

STEP 3. Describe your character to your peer (don’t show it, s/he will have to

guess following your explanations) who will have to reproduce drawing on

silhouette B.

STEP 4. Now swap the roles. Listen to the description of your peer and draw on

Silhouette B.

STEP 5. Check the drawings with your peer. Comment on the similarities and

the differences. Then write a chart where you will list all the clothes and

accessories wore by your peer’s silhouette and yours, contrasting the data.

In order to design these tasks we put a special emphasis on encouraging

participation and oral production from the L2 learners sharing with NS, the

instructor or peers a great deal of responsibility in interaction and creation of

information.

In summary, we argued that the speaking time of NNS can be increased

by the presence of same age NS, who, with the instructor-architect, can develop

25 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
a rich collaborative environment for the L2 learners as well as positive and

negative feedback. Keeping this in mind, exchange information tasks and

information gap, among others help the L2 learners to acquire faster the

communicative skills necessary to learn a second language.

6. Summary and conclusion

In this paper we have given an account on how the introduction of same

age NSs, monitored by an instructor-architect in the classroom, could benefit

the L2 learners. We sustained this argument arguing that modifications in the

interaction in the course of conversation are crucial for the acquisition of a

second language. Even if it’s been shown in empirical studies that these

modifications can occur between NNS (which means that the presence of NS in

the classroom is facultative for a possible acquisition of the target language),

we argued that the type of language used by NS when conversing with NNS

might be useful for L2 acquisition. We showed that this “foreigner talk” contains

a good deal of feedback which, employed in motion with interaction and

negotiation of meaning allow the NNS to get a higher quality intake than with

NNS peers.

We tried to frame these assumptions within the Interaction Hypothesis,

which claims that “both input modification and feedback can bring something in

the input into the learner’s focal attention at a given moment offering an

opportunity to perceive and process some piece of language the learner might miss

otherwise” (VanPatten & Benati, 2010:99)

We finally designed tasks on oral communicative practices which use the

ability to manage interaction and to negotiate meaning while involving

exchanges of unknown information. These tasks involve the same age native

26 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
speakers as well as the instructor-architect who together provide negative and

positive feedback to the L2 learners.

We also argued that contact with native speaker in a controlled

environment monitored by an instructor-architect enriches the communication

process by giving the L2 learners constant good quality negative feedback and

a wide range of formulaic sequences which both provide a richer collaborative

environment and a native like experience.

Annex 1:

Figure 1.

Negative evidence

↓ ↓

Negotiation Other types of

corrections

↓ ↓

Notice error

Search Input

↓ ↓

Input available Input not available

(confirmatory/Disconfirmatory)

27 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
References:

Arthur, B., R. Weiner, M. Culver, Y. J. Lee and D. Thomas. (1980). The register of
impersonal discourse to foreigners: verbal adjustments to foreign accent” in D.
Larsen-Freeman (ed.). Discourse Analysis in Second Language Acquisition.
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Benati, A. (2012). Key issues in second language acquisition. Equinox Publishing.

Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press.

Byrnes, H. (2005). Review of task-based language learning and teaching. The

Modern Language Journal, 89, 297-298.

Carroll, S. (1999). Putting “input” in its proper place. Second Language research,
15, 337 388.

Conklin K. & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic Sequences: Are They Processed More
Quickly than Nonformulaic Language by Native and Nonnative Speakers?
Applied Linguistics 29/1: 72-89. Oxford University Press 2008

Corder, S. P. (1967). “The significance of learners’ errors”. International review of

Applied Linguistics, 5/4: 161-70

28 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
Doughty, C., & Pica. T. (1986). Informal gap tasks: Do they facilitate second
language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305-325.

Erman, B & B. Warren. (2000). “The idiom principle and the open-choice
principle” Text 20: 29-62.

Ferguson, C. A. (1971). "Contrasting patterns of literacy acquisition in a

multilingual nation." In Whiteley 1971.

Ferguson, C. A. (1975). “Towards a characterization of english foreigner talk”.

Anthropological Linguistics. 17: 1-14.

Foster, P. (2001). “Rules and routine: A consideration of their role in the task-
based language production of native and non-native speakers” in M. Bygate, P.
Skehan, and M. Swain (eds.): Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language
Learning, Teaching, and Testing. Harlow: Longman, pp. 75-93.

Freed, B.F. (1978). “Foreigner talk: A study of speech Adjustment Made by Native
Speakers of English in Conversation with non-native speakers”. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Gass, S.M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gass, S.M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.),
Handbooks of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Oxford: Blackwell.

Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and Second Language Acquisition. In E.

Hatch (Ed.) Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401-435).
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Hawkey, R. (2006). “Teacher and learner perceptions of language learning

activity”. ELT Journal Volume 6-/3 July 2006; doi:10. 1093/elt/ccl004

Howarth, P (1998). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing in A. Cowie (ed.):

Phraseology theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 161-86

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. Prides & Holmes.

Krashen, S.D. (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New
York: Pergamon.

29 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
Lamendella, J. (1977). General principles of neurofunctional organization and
their manifestation in primary and secondary language acquisition. Language
learning, 27, 155-196.

Lee, J. (2000). Tasks and communicating in Language Classroom. New-York:

McGraw-Hill

Lee, J. & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching

happen. McGraw Hill, Inc.

Lee, J. & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen

2nd ed. New Tork: McGraw-Hill.

Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language teaching. An introduction. CUP

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

doctoral dissertation. University of California. Los Angeles.

Long, M. (1982). Native speaker/Non-native speaker conversation and the

negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, Vol.4, No2.

Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to Non-Native

Speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, No.2.

Long. M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W.Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language
acquisition: Vol. 2. SecondLanguage acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.

Meisel, J. M. (1977). “linguistic simplification: A study of immigrant workers’

speech and foreigner talk” in S. P. Corder and E. Roulet (eds.). Actes du 5eme
colloque de linguistique appliquée de Neuchatel. Paris: AIMAV/Dider

Nunan,D. (1989). “Hidden agendas: the role of the learner in programme

implementation”, in R.K. Johnson (ed.). The Second Language Curriculum.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (2000). “Seven hypotheses about language teaching and learning”.

Plenary presentation, TESOL Conversation, Vancouver, March 2000.

30 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
Peacock, M. 1998. “The links between learner beliefs, teacher beliefs, and EFL
proficiency”, in Perspectives: Working papers 10/I. City University of Hong Kong.
125-59.

Pica, T. (1998). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple

perspective. In V. Reagan (Ed.), Contemporary approaches to second language
acquisition (pp. 1-31). Dublin: University of Dublin Press.

Ramírez, A.G. (2005). Review of the social turn in second language acquisition.
The Modern Language Journal, 89, 292-293.

Savignon S.J. (1983) Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Scarcella, R., & Higa, C. (1981). Input, negotiation, and age differences in second
language acquisition. Language Learning, 31 (2), 409-438.

Sorhus, H. (1977). “To hear ourselves – Implications for teaching English as a

second language”. English Language Teaching Journal 31: 211-21

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible

inputs and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden
(Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1993). The Output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t
enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in Second Language Learning. In G.

Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.) Principle and practice in applied linguistic (pp. 125-
144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J.

Williams (Eds.) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.
64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook on research in second language learning and teaching. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

31 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T
VanPatten, B. (2003) From Input to Output. A teacher’s guide to second
language acquisition. The McGraw-Hill second language professional series.

VanPatten, B & Benati, A. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition.

Continuum international Publishing group.

32 | P a p e r o n K e y I s s u e s i n S L T