output and input

Ⅰ Literature Review 1.1 Input Hypothesis

Input Hypothesis, advanced by Krashen, a famous American applied linguist, in the late 1970s and the

early 1980s, is an all-round theory concerning second language acquisition (SLA). Meanwhile, it is the

most influential and controversial theory in second language acquisition research. Such influences still

exist till now. Krashen’s Input Hypothesis is similar to Chomsky’s theory on first language acquisition in

some respects, such as the function of Language Acquisition Device (LAD) in the process of language

learning.

Krashen states that language input plays an identical part with Language Acquisition Device. Together

with language input, a learner can construct a series of internal expressions of a good language, in other

words, construct an independent language system outside the learner’s first language (Jia Guanjie,

1996).

According to Krashen, an important 毕业论文 condition for language acquisition to

occur is that the acquirer understands (via hearing and reading) input language that contains structure “a

bit beyond” his or her current level of competence. In other words, the language which learners are

exposed to should be just far enough beyond their current competence that they can understand most of

it but is still challenged to make progress.

Krashen’s widely known and well-accepted theory of second language acquisition has had a large impact

in all areas of second language research and teaching since the 1980s. The theory consists of five main

hypotheses.

(1) The acquisition-learning hypothesis本文来自六*维~论^文'网

Krashen believed that adults have two different ways to develop competence in a language, namely,

language acquisition and language learning.

Language acquisition is a subconscious process not unlike the way a child learns language. Language

acquires are not consciously aware of the grammatical rules of the language, but rather develop a “feel”

for correctness.

Contents

AbstractⅠ

摘要.Ⅱ

Literature Review..1

1.1 Input Hypothesis..1

1.1.1 An Overview of Input..3

1.1.2 The Limitations of Input Hypothesis.3

1.2 Output Hypothesis4

1.2.1 Definition of Output..4

1.2.2 An Overview of Comprehensible Output Hypothesis4

1.2.3 Functions of Output5

1.2.3.1 The “Noticing/Triggering” Function..5

1.2.3.2 Hypothesis Testing.6

1.2.3.3 The Meta-linguistic Function.6

ⅡClarification of Relevant Concepts.. 9

2.1 Acquisition VS. Learning..9

2.2 Second Language VS. Foreign Language10

ⅢThe Relationship between Input and Output11

3.1 Input Precedes Output.13

3.2 Output Supplements Input14

ⅣThe Balance between Language Input and Language Output in TEFL Classes for Chinese

Students..17

4.1 The Importance of Balance between Language Input and Language Output..18

4.2 Classroom Activities19

4.2.1 Roughly-tuned Input.20

4.2.2 Finely-tuned Input21

4.2.3 Communicative Output.21

ⅤConclusion22

References23

Acknowledgements.24

摘 要

如今，我国外语教学“假繁荣”现象十分严重，学习外语者比比皆是，可是实际数据显示我国学生在参加国外考试如雅思，BEC等考试时，相比起听力与阅读部分，口语以及写作部分的成绩偏低。另外，有许多通过英语大学四六级考试的学生感叹自己学的是 “哑巴英语”,所学的内容不会运用，不能与人交流。究其原因，是因为许多语言学习者在第二语言习得过程中，忽略了语言学习的本质，更突出的问题是割裂了“语言输入”与“语言输出”之间的关系，在外语学习的过程中没有给予两者同等的重视。有鉴于此，通过学习Krashen的语言输入理论以及swain的语言输出理论，笔者意图通过本研究揭示“语言输入”与“语言输出”在外语教学过程中的关系与作用及其两者间的平衡对二语习得产生的重要性，并借此提高广大外语学习者对此的重视程度。摘要：语言输入 语言输出 二语习得 1542

On the Role of Language Input and Language Output in Second Language Acquisition

ABSTRACT Nowadays, the phenomenon of fake prosperity in language teaching in China has sparked a

hot debate. Many language learners who take part in exams such as IELTS and BEC find that it is difficult

to get a high score in speaking and writing compared to listening and reading. In addition, many college

students who passed the exam of CET4 and CET6 cannot use English approp本文来自六*维~论^文'网riately, even though they have learned this language for over 10 years. The root of this phenomenon is

that Chinese students always neglect the importance of achieving a balance between language input and

language out in second language acquisition. This paper mainly analyses the reason why language

learners should pay attention to the balance between language input and language output, as well as the

important role of language input and language output in second language acquisition

Key Words: language input language output second language acquisition

Language Learning, on the other hand, refers to the “conscious knowledge of a second language,

knowing the rules, being aware of them and bein毕业论文 g able to talk about

them.” Thus language learning can be compared to learning about a language.

The acquisition-learning distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in Stephen Krashen’s

theory and the most widely known among linguists and language practitioners.

(2) The monitor hypothesis

The language that one has subconsciously acquired “initiates our utterances in a second language and is

responsible for our fluency,” whereas the language that we have consciously learned acts as an editor in

situations where the learner has enough time to edit, is focused on form, and knows the rule, such as on

a grammar test in a language classroom or when carefully writing a composition. This conscious editor is

called the Monitor.

The monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning and defines the

influence of the latter on the former. The monitoring function is the practical result of the learned

grammar.

(3) The natural order hypothesis

The natural order hypothesis is based on Krashen’s research findings which suggested that the

acquisition of grammatical structures follows a “natural order” which is predictable.

(4) The input hypothesis

The input hypothesis answers the question of how a language acquirer develops

competency over time. It states that a language acquirer who at “level i” must receive

comprehensible input that is at “level i+1.” We acquire, in other words, only when we

understand language that contains structure that is “a little beyond” where we are now.

The input hypothesis is the result of Krashen’s attempt to explain how the learner

acquires a second language. In other words, this hypothesis is Krashen’s explanation

of how second language acquisition takes place.

(5) The affective filter hypothesis

Motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety al本文来自六*维~论^文'网l affect language acquisition, in effect

raising or lowering the “stickiness” or “penetration” of any comprehensible input that is received

The affective filter hypothesis embodies Krashen’s view that a number of “affective variables” play a

facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition. Theses variables include motivation,

self-confidence and anxiety.

1.1.1 An Overview of Input

Input is probably one of the most important concepts in SLA. The relation between input and SLA is

always a key aspect in the field of SLA. Input, itself, includes all the language signals, i.e. words, phrases

and sentences of one particular language, and signals from other language that may be brought in

through translation, comparison and so on. In language learning it means the linguistic material to which

the learner is exposed, i.e. the learner’s experience of the target language in all its manifestations

(Sharwood Smith, 1993). In the classroom teaching, the effect of linguistic input is closely connected with

the strategy for its transmission to the students. It seems to be a direct and informative signal which

conveys semantic sense (Andersen, 1981; Larsen-Freeman, 1991; Nunan, 1995). In language

acquisition, input plays an indispensable role. However, the role of input in language acquisition is always

a controversial question. Behaviorists and Mentalists differ greatly on it.

1.1.2 The Limitations of Input Hypothesis

We should also point out that there are many limitations to the Input Hypothesis theory. First, Krashen

emphasizes the importance of input in language acq毕业论文 uisition, but the

definition of input is narrow, as he advocates natural input while neglecting non-natural input, this is

impossible for Chinese learners of English to be in the real situation of communication. What’s more,

Krashen emphasizes much more on the input than output; this will impede students’ communicative

ability. Krashen theory also neglects the role of learners themselves, without positive motivation and

attitude of learning foreign language; the input alone would not be enough for SLA.

1.2 Output Hypothesis

Among many methods and techniques that aim to facilitate the development of the learner’s first

language grammar, the role of output in SLA is relatively unexplored. A common assumption is that

output is only an indication of SLA that has already taken place and does not play any significant role in

language acquisition process (Krashen, 1985). But this assumption has come into question since the

publication of Swain’s (1985) seminal article, in which the Output Hypothesis was first proposed.

1.2.1 Definition of Output

Swain put forward the theory of “Output Hypothesis” in relation to second language acquisition. In her

work, there appeared some terms synonymous with output such as “Producing language”

(Swain,1995:125), “producing the target language”, “language performance”, “using the language” and

“speaking or writing” (Swain, 1995:127), and "production or use” (Swain&Lapkin,1995:371). It seems that

output in Swain’s term is dynamic; it not only refers to the language produced by learners but also the

process of producing the target language. We will adopt Swain’s view of output here.

The definition of output can be found in Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics

as part of that of “input”: (in language learning) language which a learner hears or receives and from

which he or she can learn. The language a learner produces is by analogy sometimes called “output”

(Richards, J.C., Platt, J. &Platt, H., 2000:227). In this case, output simply means the language a learner

produces compared with what the learner receives.

1.2.2 An Overview of Comprehensible Output Hypothesis

Based on findings from studies that Swain conducted on immersion students in Canada, she found that

although immersion students were provided with a rich source of comprehensible input, their

inter-language performance was still off-target, that is, they were clearly identifiable as non-native

speakers or writers (Swain, 1984, 1985). She therefore doubted whether comprehensible input on its

own is sufficient for second language acquisition.

Output helps us make our knowledge more “automatic” through practice and by providing a domain for

error correction, which helps us arrive at a better本文来自六*维~论^文'网 version of our rule. This

approach is also known as “direct teaching” or formal instruction.

The comprehensible output hypothesis maintains that language acquisition occurs when we say

something and our conversational partner do not understand, forcing us to notice a gap in our

competence. We then try again until we arrive at the correct version of the rule.

Swain’s hypothesis about the role of output in foreign language learning and her notion, output in

dialogue, has beneficially enlarged our scope and deepened our understanding about how the process of

output production can facilitate learning process. All her ideas about output can be concisely generalized

in one sentence: learners’ production of the target language in a specific context can facilitate their

learning process, leading to their improvements of the target language.

1.2.3 Functions of Output毕业论文

In applied linguistics (in its narrow sense), much work has been focused on the role of input and

comprehension. Although the importance of output had drawn attention from some western researchers,

no systematic study of it had been conducted until Swain’s (1985, 1995) research of Canadian immersion

program. The situation at home is even more unsatisfactory. So far as this writer knows, there is little

study that is concerned with the function of output in China’s foreign language teaching.

Since the function of output to enhance the fluency has now been widely known and accepted, Swain

does not include this in her hypothesis. Instead, she proposes the other three functions that output

serves in promoting accuracy.

1.2.3.1 The “Noticing/Triggering” Function

The “noticing/triggering” function is also referred to as consciousness-raising function. Swain(1995)

argues that language production may trigger learners’ noticing of problems existing in their

inter-language, that is, in producing the target language, learners may notice a gap between what they

want to say and what they can say, leading them to recognize what they don’t know, or know only

partially of producing the target language may prompt second language learners to consciously

recognize some of their linguistic problems; it may bring to their attention something they need to

discover about their L2 (Swain, 1995:125-126). This may trigger cognitive process which might generate

linguistic knowledge that is new for learners, or which consolidate their existing knowledge （Swain &

Lapkin,1994）.

Swain and Lapkin found that there were 190 occasions in which students encountered a linguistic

problem in their output. In each case the students forced themselves to modify their output toward

greater message comprehensibility. That is, communicative needs forced students to move from

semantic to syntactic analysis of the target language.

Swain and Lapkin （Swain & Lapkin,1994:384） argued that “on each occasion, the students engaged in

mental processing that may have generated linguistic knowledge that is new for the learner, or

consolidated existing knowledge.” In other words, it was argued that in the process of modifying their IL

utterances in the direction of greater comprehensibility, L2 learners were engaged in some restructuring

of system which affected their access to the knowledge base, and that this restructuring process was part

of second language learning.

1.2.3.2 Hypothesis Testing

The second role of output is hypothesis testing. Producing output is a way of testing a hypothesis about

comprehensibility or linguistic well-formedness of their inter-language against feedback obtained from

the interlocutors. This function of output relates directly to the notion of comprehensible output proposed

by Swain. By producing output, learners can test their hypotheses, and by being pushed in the process of

negotiation of meaning, learners can be more accurate in their production. Sometimes this output

invokes feedback which can lead learners to modify or “reprocess” their output. Speaking allows the

speaker to control the agenda and to take risks and look for feedback on the points of uncertainty in a

developing grammar (Swain, 1995). Several studies have been conducted to test this function. The

results from the studies related to the hypothesis-testing function of output (Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993; Pica,

1988, 1992; Pica, Holliday, Lewis & Morgenthaler, 1989; Takashima, 1994) show that learners often

modify their output in response to the linguistic demands of comprehensible output may have a long-term

effect.

1.2.3.3 The Meta-linguistic Function

The meta-linguistics refers to the total sum of knowledge about language which learners have. It is an

embryonic form about linguistic form, structure and system which they obtained by reflection and analysis.

It is claimed that as learners reflect upon their own target language use, their output serves a

meta-linguistic function, enabling them to control and internalize linguistic knowledge (Swain, 1995: 126).

In other words, output may cause the learner to engage in more syntactic progressing than is necessary

for the comprehension of input. This syntactic progressing may lead to modified or reprocessed

output—a possible step toward language acquisition.

The results of the studies focusing on the meta-linguistic function of output (Dnato,1994; Lapierre,1994;

Swain,1995) lend some support to the claim that producing language and reflection on it in an attempt to

create meaning have positive effects on language learning process. Learners obtain meaning by

negotiation; the content of negotiation is the structural form of language relating the form本文来自六*维~论^文'网 of language with the meaning they attempt to express, learners express the meaning with

language, and then reflect the form of language. So output can cause the learner to engage in synta毕业论文 ctically based processing from semantically based processing.

In general, the importance of output in learning may be construed in terms of the learners’ active

deployment of their cognitive resources. In other words, it is posited that the output requirement presents

learners with unique opportunities to process language that may not be decisively necessary for simple

comprehension. In proposing the Output Hypothesis, Swain (1985) argued that producing the target

language (TL) may serve as “the trigger that forces the learners to pay attention to the means of

expression needed in order to successfully convey his or her own intended meaning” (Swain, 1985:249).

Of the three functions of output specified in the current version of the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1993,

1995, 1998), the present study focuses on its “noticing” or “triggering” function. The “noticing“ function of

output posits that learners may notice the gap in their IL knowledge in an attempt to produce the target

language, which then prompts them to solve their linguistic deficiency in ways that are appropriate in a

given context. For example, if learners are left on their own to solve the immediate production difficulties,

they may engage in various thought processes that can consolidate existing knowledge (Swain & Lapkin,

1995). On the other hand, if relevant input is immediately available, the heightened sense of

problematicity during production may cause the learners to process subsequent input with more focused

attention; they may try to examine closely how the TL expresses the intention that they just had difficulty

in expressing on their own. In either case, learning is believed to be enhanced through the act of

producing language, which, by its mechanisms, increases the likelihood that learners become sensitive

to what they can and can’t say in the TL, which leads to the reappraisal of their TL capabilities.