How does the Output Hypothesis Impact on Second Language Acquisition

Abstract This paper aims to investigate the importance of output in English as Second/ Foreign Language Learning （ESL/EFL） firstly by demonstrating three functions of output. Finally， teaching implications are drawn concerning the role of output in ESL/EFL， in order to encourage optimal language development and facilitate their achievement of language proficiency.

Key words output， output hypothesis， SLA

中圖分類號：H319 文獻標識碼：A

1 Overview of output in SLA

The output hypothesis was first put forward by Swain （1985） in connection with SLA based on the French immersion program she had conducted s in Canada. In contrast to Krashen， Swain identifies that too little language production precludes the learners from attaining second or foreign language of high level. In the research， he also states that comprehensible output does not take the responsibility for all language competence. Rather， he claims that under some circumstances， output sometimes enhances second language learning in ways that are different from those of input （Swain and Lapkin， 1995）. The notion “Output”， used to indicate the outcome or product of the language acquisition device （krashen， 1985）， is now more likely regarded as a verb interpreting the action or process of learning second language under certain situation ， such as “producing language”， “using a language” and “speaking or writing” （Swain， 1995， P125-127）. Izumi（2002） promotes the psycholinguistic rationale of this hypotheses. In 2002， Mackey provides evidence of the reality of the notion of “pushed output”. In addition， VanPatten （2003） describes “output” as the process of second or foreign language learning that the learners produce in order to communicate or express meaning. Therefore， the comprehensible output hypothesis not only functions as the practice of producing language to increase efficient output， but also promotes the advancement of the interlanguage （IL） system of the learners （Izumi， 2003）.

2 Functions of output on SLA

There are many advantages of encouraging learners’ output and Swain （1995） outlines three functions of output in second language learning： the hypothesis-testing function ， the metalinguistic （reflective） function as well as the noticing or triggering function. The three functions reflect the main advantages of the output processing.

Firstly， output can test their hypotheses about TL by producing output. Meanwhile， learners can produce more accurate language by being pushed in the process of negotiation of meaning. Output can examine the adequateness of the production in the target language. Specifically， when learners produce output in TL， they will definitely encounter the responses from others. Gaining feedback from others will help learners to raise their consciousness of the mistakes and then they can correct them. According to Izumi’ study （2002）， output in isolation can promote learners to detect the formal elements in the input， integrate the target structure and identify the mismatches between one’s IL form and the TL input. Izumi also suggests the immediate exposure to relevant input after their production would lead learners to pay closer attention to their weak problematic part in their IL and they can process the effective input driven by pushed output.

Secondly， the metalinguistic （reflective） function claims that output provides opportunities for learners to reflect on language which is produced by others or the self （Swain， 2005）. It enables the learners to control and internalize linguistic knowledge and cause them to engage in more syntactic processing in diverse situations. The practice of producing TL enhances fluency， with the saying “practice makes perfect” and the large quantitative production develops automaticity in language use and access to fluent performance， which is the fluency function of Swain’s （1993） hypothesis. Also， they tend to strengthen the learners’ awareness of forms， rules and form-function relationships， which helps them to refine the selection of patterns in the production （Swain， 1995）.

In addition， output can promote noticing and learning. When language learns try to produce TL， they may realize some of their linguistic problems， as a result， learners may focus their attention on what they need to solve language problems. Output can promote noticing and learning of English （Mennim， 2007； Izumi， 2000）， pushing learners to intake the comprehend input （Schmidt， 1990； Doughty， 1999）. During the course， learners can make a cognitive comparison between their produced language and the TL and manage to make their production more target-like. The noticing function of the Output Hypothesis （Swain， 2005） posits that learners may notice the gap in their acquired IL when their want to convey their meaning in the TL. The failure in expressing proper TL urges them to solve the linguistic difficulties by searching their existing knowledge or generating some new knowledge on the basis of their current knowledge （Swain Lapkin， 1995） or pursuing some new knowledge through the relevant intended input. In this case， learners’ IL can be consolidated through the act of producing language.

3 Teaching implications for output in SLA

It is crucial to encourage learners’ output in the target language and balance the use of input and output. Pedagogically， the following suggestions can be adopted by the instructors during the language processing.

First of all， teachers should change their mind to focus on output and encourage students to produce the TL， in order to bring the attention to their own language problems. Teachers should put emphasis on the interest of output activities which maintain close contact with real life. Learners can engage in awareness-raising activities （Thornbury， 1997） aimed at the training of noticing strategies.

After learners produce output in writing or speaking， enhanced input can be given to meet learners’ need to fill the gap between their interlanguage knowledge and the target language. Learners reap the satisfaction which stimulates the further tryout of output.

The instructors can design the collaborative activities for learners to complete a reconstruction task. As in Kowal and Swain’s （1994） study， after listening to and taking notes on the input story， learners work together to reconstruct the story. In the reconstruction learners convert the perceived input to output and get the feedback in the stage of the analysis and correction of the reconstructed story. The feedback on the good or poor performance of the learners’ production should be given in respond to the production attempt （Swain， 1995）. In addition to the above measures， something can be done to overcome the shyness/ reluctance to speak. An active atmosphere can help to release the tension and anxiety of the learners when they produce output （Caiyao， 2011）. The methodological and psychological measures can contribute to the encouragement of the learners’ output， leading them to achievement of the accuracy in the target language.

A task-based approach is recommended which would be easier for learners to produce output and play the role as a “helper” while learners get confused in the integrative process. Besides， teachers should not only give proper feedback to learners’ output， but also be tolerant to learners’ language errors to encourage more output.

4 Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this paper， it seems clear that output plays a crucial role in ESL/EFL learning and teaching. As teachers become more aware of these findings， it is hoped that adequate and appropriate instructional measures will be taken to encourage learners’ output in IL. If the current trend continues， it is likely that learners will benefit tremendously in the development of language proficiency.

Reference

[1] Adams， R. （2003）. L2 output， reformulation and noticing： implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research. 7（3）： 347.

[2] Caiyao， L （2011）. Listening and Speaking Instruction of College English Based on Krashen’s Input and Output Hypothesis. Overseas English.

[3] Doughty， C. （1999）. Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. University of Hawai’I Working Paper in ESL. 18（1）：1-69.

[4] Ellis， R. （1994）. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford： Oxford University Press.

[5] Kowal， M.， Swain， M. （1994）. Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness， 3， pp.73-93.

[6] Larsen-Freeman， D.， Long， M. （1991）. An introduction to second language acquisition research. London： Longman.

[7] Schmidt， R. （1990）. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics. 11（2）： pp. 129-158.

[8] Swain， M. （1985）. Communicative competence： Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C.Madden （Eds）： Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley， MA： Newbury House， pp. 235-53.

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

[10] Swain， M. （1995）. Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty， C. and Williams， J.， editors， Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 64-81.

[11] Swain， M. （2005）. The Output Hypothesis： theory and research. In E. Hinkel （Ed.）， Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah， NJ： Lawrence Erlbaum.

[12] Swain， M.， Lapkin， S. （1995）. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate： A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics， 16， pp.371-391.

[13] Thornbury， S. （1997）. Reformulation and reconstruction： Tasks that promote ‘noticing’. ELT Journal. 51（4）：326-335.