论文部分内容阅读
Abstract:More and more linguists and language teachers have realized that input alone cannot lead to successful language learning,output should also be paid much attention. According to Swain’s output hypothesis,output is an important part in the process of SLA. This paper will focus on introducing the four functions of output in SLA:the noticing/triggering function; the hypothesis testing function; the matalinguistic function and the languaging function. So the teaching and learning of SLA should follow the regularity and output should be reinforced to help language learners develop their language skills in full scale.
Ⅰ、Introduction
Many scholars and linguists have carried out lots of research and discussions about SLA. Among them Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (Krashen,1982) has made a wide influence in the field of foreign language teaching and the importance of input has been generally acknowledged by many people. The Input Hypothesis is part of a theory of language acquisition and it claims that there is only one necessary and sufficient condition for second language acquisition,and that is the presence of comprehensible input. Specifically,if learners are at stage "i"in their language development,they can acquire i+1 if they understand input containing i+1. According to Krashen (1982),we acquire more language only when we are exposed to comprehensible input that is a little beyond our current level of competence. i+1 means the input should be beyond language learners' current levels but it should not be too complicated,just a little beyond the current levels. He also argues thatspeaking is the result of acquisition not its cause'. He claims that the only way learners can learn from their output is by treating it as auto-input which refers to the possibility that learners' own output can serve as input to their language acquisition mechanisms. In effect,Krashen is refuting the cherished belief of many teachers that languages are learned by practicing them. Nowadays more and more scholars and language teachers have realized that input alone is not sufficient for acquisition,because when one hears language,one can often interpret the meaning without the use of syntax. Krashen's limited view of output has been questioned since the publication of Merrill Swain's seminal article in which theoutput hypothesis' was first put forward (Swain,1985). Swain has argued that comprehensible output also plays a part in L2 acquisition. Put most simply,the output hypothesis claims that the act of producing language (speaking or writing) constitutes,under circumstances,part of the process of SLA. It was formulated in reaction to Krashen's claim about the major role ofcomprehensible input' in SLA and the stimulus for this was the lack of second language development by immersion children even after years of academic study in that second language. Swain (1985) argued that one of the important reasons for this is that these learners engage in too little language production,which prevents them from going beyond a functional level of L2 proficiency.
K:We don't need anything [aftercentury']??...No,I don't think so! {=I don’t think that’s right｝
Y:…who lived in 19th century…19th century Japan,in 19th century Japan.
K:We need ‘in’ or ‘of’. I think so,there{pointing｝,‘in’ or ‘of’.
Y:Mmm. {non-committal｝
K:Because 19th century is noun,not adjective,what,what do you think about it?
Y:But the [reformulator] omitted ‘of’. {willing to accept reformulator’s feedback｝
K:Mm hmm,mm hmm. {pondering｝
Y:So…
K:I don’t know why.
Y:He wanted to say 19th century. {Yoji has accepted the reformulation｝
K:Like adjective. {=but that’s what you’d do if it was an adjective｝
Y:[it] is an adjective and 19th century Japan? {Yoji tries,timidly,to say that it is an adjective,an adjective that modifies Japan｝
K:I think this one is…this sentence [19th century of Japan] is correct,not,not wrong,I think so,or ‘in’ maybe?
Y:But we…
K:Because I always use this kind of phrase.
Y:Mm hmm {Yoji decides it’s time to move on｝
It is an excellent example of what happens to feedback:why the corrective feedback,the input,provided by the reformulator didn't "work" for Ken. Ken's response to the feedback was mediated by his past learning,and reinforced by his present languaging. But many turns later,they noticed that the reformulator had added "the" to "in 19th century". Through languaging,they collaboratively reason through to an understanding that explains both of the changes made by the reformulator.
Y:"People in the"{reading｝
K:in the,in the,in the,in THE 19th century.
Y:Here,“in 19th century Japan” {referring to the first reformulation｝
K:Ahhh! {the moment of insight｝
Y:So this is a different…so if we put ‘the’
K:Yeah,it sh-,it should be noun,noun. {=we should put “the” if “19th century” is a noun｝
Y:In the 19th century
K:If we,if we,if we want to use [19th century] as a noun…
Y:Mm.
K:…maybe we need article…
Y:Article. If we don’t put articles
K:We don't have to put in article [forin 19th century Japan'] because this [19th century] is adjectivedifference. Okay.
When they re-wrote,on their own,their original story,both Ken and Yoji adhered to the reformulator's versions. In this example,students were stimulated to language about language because in doing the tasks,they realized that there were things about the target language that they didn't know or were unsure of. Faced with this,they set about trying to solve problem,using language as a mediating tool. Languaging mediated the students’ learning by drawing their attention to language-related problems they had,and by giving them the tools to reason with,and through to,solutions.
Ⅲ、Conclusion
To sum up,output plays a very important role in SLA. It provides learners with the opportunity to practice and produce language and gain feedback,which,by focusing learners' attention on certain local aspects of their speech,may lead learners to realize that they lack the grammatical knowledge of some feature that is important for what they want to say or write. In the process of their output,learners can try out a rule and see whether it leads to successful communication or whether it elicits negative feedback and they also can identify problems in their output and discuss ways in which they can be put right when they are talking with other interlocutors. So both comprehensible input and comprehensible output are important in SLA,there is no understanding of language without comprehensible input and there is no output without understanding of language. Then what second language teachers and learners should do in order to follow the regularity in SLA. For teachers,we should pay attention to the training of students' receptive skills as well as their productive skills. In our daily teaching,we should create and provide more opportunities for students to practice and produce the target language and try to give them some feedback which can help them to develop their L2. For students,they should try to intake and digest all the input knowledge and then try to produce fluently and correctly. They should combine input with output so as to learn their second language well. I find that there are many students in my class who can get high marks in examinations but cannot speak well. We often call their English as "dumb English" which means that they know lots of grammar rules and vocabulary but they cannot use them in real communication. I think the reason is that they are not given lots of chances to practice what they have received because there were no speaking and writing class in our college before the reform of college English teaching and what we had were only intensive reading and listening class. I do believe if teachers and students can attach importance to output just like their attitude to input,students can really get rid of their “dumb English” and improve their integrated skills to use the target language.
Ⅰ、Introduction
Many scholars and linguists have carried out lots of research and discussions about SLA. Among them Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (Krashen,1982) has made a wide influence in the field of foreign language teaching and the importance of input has been generally acknowledged by many people. The Input Hypothesis is part of a theory of language acquisition and it claims that there is only one necessary and sufficient condition for second language acquisition,and that is the presence of comprehensible input. Specifically,if learners are at stage "i"in their language development,they can acquire i+1 if they understand input containing i+1. According to Krashen (1982),we acquire more language only when we are exposed to comprehensible input that is a little beyond our current level of competence. i+1 means the input should be beyond language learners' current levels but it should not be too complicated,just a little beyond the current levels. He also argues thatspeaking is the result of acquisition not its cause'. He claims that the only way learners can learn from their output is by treating it as auto-input which refers to the possibility that learners' own output can serve as input to their language acquisition mechanisms. In effect,Krashen is refuting the cherished belief of many teachers that languages are learned by practicing them. Nowadays more and more scholars and language teachers have realized that input alone is not sufficient for acquisition,because when one hears language,one can often interpret the meaning without the use of syntax. Krashen's limited view of output has been questioned since the publication of Merrill Swain's seminal article in which theoutput hypothesis' was first put forward (Swain,1985). Swain has argued that comprehensible output also plays a part in L2 acquisition. Put most simply,the output hypothesis claims that the act of producing language (speaking or writing) constitutes,under circumstances,part of the process of SLA. It was formulated in reaction to Krashen's claim about the major role ofcomprehensible input' in SLA and the stimulus for this was the lack of second language development by immersion children even after years of academic study in that second language. Swain (1985) argued that one of the important reasons for this is that these learners engage in too little language production,which prevents them from going beyond a functional level of L2 proficiency.
K:We don't need anything [aftercentury']??...No,I don't think so! {=I don’t think that’s right｝
Y:…who lived in 19th century…19th century Japan,in 19th century Japan.
K:We need ‘in’ or ‘of’. I think so,there{pointing｝,‘in’ or ‘of’.
Y:Mmm. {non-committal｝
K:Because 19th century is noun,not adjective,what,what do you think about it?
Y:But the [reformulator] omitted ‘of’. {willing to accept reformulator’s feedback｝
K:Mm hmm,mm hmm. {pondering｝
Y:So…
K:I don’t know why.
Y:He wanted to say 19th century. {Yoji has accepted the reformulation｝
K:Like adjective. {=but that’s what you’d do if it was an adjective｝
Y:[it] is an adjective and 19th century Japan? {Yoji tries,timidly,to say that it is an adjective,an adjective that modifies Japan｝
K:I think this one is…this sentence [19th century of Japan] is correct,not,not wrong,I think so,or ‘in’ maybe?
Y:But we…
K:Because I always use this kind of phrase.
Y:Mm hmm {Yoji decides it’s time to move on｝
It is an excellent example of what happens to feedback:why the corrective feedback,the input,provided by the reformulator didn't "work" for Ken. Ken's response to the feedback was mediated by his past learning,and reinforced by his present languaging. But many turns later,they noticed that the reformulator had added "the" to "in 19th century". Through languaging,they collaboratively reason through to an understanding that explains both of the changes made by the reformulator.
Y:"People in the"{reading｝
K:in the,in the,in the,in THE 19th century.
Y:Here,“in 19th century Japan” {referring to the first reformulation｝
K:Ahhh! {the moment of insight｝
Y:So this is a different…so if we put ‘the’
K:Yeah,it sh-,it should be noun,noun. {=we should put “the” if “19th century” is a noun｝
Y:In the 19th century
K:If we,if we,if we want to use [19th century] as a noun…
Y:Mm.
K:…maybe we need article…
Y:Article. If we don’t put articles
K:We don't have to put in article [forin 19th century Japan'] because this [19th century] is adjectivedifference. Okay.
When they re-wrote,on their own,their original story,both Ken and Yoji adhered to the reformulator's versions. In this example,students were stimulated to language about language because in doing the tasks,they realized that there were things about the target language that they didn't know or were unsure of. Faced with this,they set about trying to solve problem,using language as a mediating tool. Languaging mediated the students’ learning by drawing their attention to language-related problems they had,and by giving them the tools to reason with,and through to,solutions.
Ⅲ、Conclusion
To sum up,output plays a very important role in SLA. It provides learners with the opportunity to practice and produce language and gain feedback,which,by focusing learners' attention on certain local aspects of their speech,may lead learners to realize that they lack the grammatical knowledge of some feature that is important for what they want to say or write. In the process of their output,learners can try out a rule and see whether it leads to successful communication or whether it elicits negative feedback and they also can identify problems in their output and discuss ways in which they can be put right when they are talking with other interlocutors. So both comprehensible input and comprehensible output are important in SLA,there is no understanding of language without comprehensible input and there is no output without understanding of language. Then what second language teachers and learners should do in order to follow the regularity in SLA. For teachers,we should pay attention to the training of students' receptive skills as well as their productive skills. In our daily teaching,we should create and provide more opportunities for students to practice and produce the target language and try to give them some feedback which can help them to develop their L2. For students,they should try to intake and digest all the input knowledge and then try to produce fluently and correctly. They should combine input with output so as to learn their second language well. I find that there are many students in my class who can get high marks in examinations but cannot speak well. We often call their English as "dumb English" which means that they know lots of grammar rules and vocabulary but they cannot use them in real communication. I think the reason is that they are not given lots of chances to practice what they have received because there were no speaking and writing class in our college before the reform of college English teaching and what we had were only intensive reading and listening class. I do believe if teachers and students can attach importance to output just like their attitude to input,students can really get rid of their “dumb English” and improve their integrated skills to use the target language.