Posted: June 11th, 2015

Literature review chapter

The order is one chapter of the literature review. My thesis is about using pushed output to teach vocabulary in the classroom. I Want you to write about task based approach in relation to (1) vocabulary learning (2) pushed output. it seems that pushed output is part of this approach so try to define its place and the relationship between them. Here are some references that you can use:
1- Task-Based Language Learning – Insights from and for L2 Writing (Task-Based Language Teaching) Byrnes, Heidi.
2- Processing Perspectives on Task Performance (Task-Based Language Teaching) Skehan, Peter.
3- Task Based Language Learning & Teaching: TbLl&T. Shahzad, Asthma Kashif.
4- Vocabulary Learning Through Task-Based Instruction, Yeh, Chiu-lan.
5- Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching / Mike Long.
6- Doing task-based teaching / Dave Willis and Jane Willis.
7- A framework for task-based learning / Jane Willis.
8- Task-based language learning and teaching / Rod Ellis.
9- Task-based language learning / Peter Robinson, editor.
10- Task-based language teaching / David Nunan.

Reference (1) is a very new one so hopefully you can cite it as much as possible. Make sure that you read first about pushed output then start to write the chapter. I will provide you with the chapter that I completed about pushed output. Read it first to understand what is pushed output.

 

 

Does pushed output promote the learning of Vocabulary in Saudi EFL context?

 

Introduction

Knowledge of second language acquisition (SLA) is advanced by various theories that try to explain the most effective ways that language learners can acquire new language forms. One of these theories is the comprehensible output (CO) hypothesis. Many researchers have sought to explain the manner in which people learn a foreign or a second language. In reflecting on their work, it is apparent that some of these scholars – such as Noam Chomsky, Stephen Krashen, and Merrill Swain – developed various hypotheses in this field (Swain & Steinman, 2010). Language learning involves two primary processes of input, as advanced by Krashen, as well as output, developed by Swain, and linking the two processes is necessary. In the process of learning a second language (L2), Ortega (2009) asserts that input and output structures form two of the major environmental factors that contribute to, but do not limit, optimal learning (p. 62-63). In particular regard to English, language articulation, where the output hypothesis plays a critical part, is an important factor in the process of production. Swain (1985) found that many language learners were missing opportunities to use the target language in meaningful ways through writing as well as speaking. These two processes are called the output mechanism.

 

Developed by Swain (1995), the CO hypothesis states that learning occurs when a learner encounters a gap in their knowledge of the L2. Noticing this gap makes the learner aware of it, and, in some cases, he or she may try to modify the output in order to learn a new element of the L2. Cook (2008) asserts that the process of language acquisition does not solely rely on comprehensible output. However, Swain (1995) asserts that under certain conditions elaborated in the subsequent sections, CO facilitates L2 learning in different ways than other theories connected to language production.

 

So, why pushed output?

Vocabulary acquisition through meaning-focused output can help in three ways: by encouraging the use of new vocabulary, by helping learners negotiate the meaning of unknown vocabulary, and by strengthening learners’ knowledge of partially known items by using these in production (Nation & Meara, 2010). The theoretical basis behind this type of vocabulary learning draws from the “levels of processing” hypothesis (Craik & Lockhart, 1972), which essentially states that the more cognitively involved learners are with an item, the more they will remember it. Researchers have suggested that this cognitive involvement and depth of processing can be encouraged when learners encounter items in contexts that are different from those in which learners have previously encountered the words – known as “generative use” (Nation & Webb, 2011). Overall, studies have shown that the design features of language acquisition tasks can have an effect on vocabulary learning, but, while researchers have looked at how task design can affect grammar acquisition, the effect of different production tasks on vocabulary learning is an under-researched area (Nation & Webb, 2011). This is surprising given that many language-learning materials involve learners in producing vocabulary from an early stage (Shintani, 2011). This neglected area is, therefore, the focus of this proposed study.

 

Research questions:

 

The main research question is as follows:

• Does participation in output-based tasks enhance the acquisition of vocabulary among Saudi EFL learners?

The following sub-research questions will also be investigated:

• Which types of output-based tasks enhance the acquisition of vocabulary among Saudi EFL learners?
• Does pushed output result in more language-related episodes (LREs)?

 

Background

In the 1980s, the word ‘output’ was synonymous with the product of a learning process and was used in second language acquisition (SLA) research as a means of demonstrating what learners had learnt (Swain, 2005). However, following Swain’s (1985) paper regarding the role of output in the language acquisition process and her proposal of the output hypothesis, there has been a shift in meaning in recent years. Output as a product has shifted to output as a process and an action with an important role to play in second language learning. In this chapter, the origins of the output hypothesis and its theoretical underpinnings are discussed including the potential functions that output can have in the learning process. Research evaluating the output hypothesis is briefly discussed and some criticisms of this viewpoint are also explored.

 

1. The Origins of the Output Hypothesis

In the 1980s, the dominant theoretical paradigm for SLA was information processing theory, and input was given a predominant role in language acquisition. This paradigm was characterised by Krashen’s findings on the input hypothesis (1982, 1985), which stated that the only necessary condition for SLA was the presence of comprehensible input. More specifically, he maintained that if learners are at stage ‘i’ in their learning development, they can advance to stage ‘i + 1’ through the comprehension of input that contains i + 1. A number of authors have suggested ways that input could be made comprehensible for learners. For example, Long (1985) proposed that clarification requests and comprehension checks could serve as ways of making input comprehensible. Pica (1994) discussed the importance of negotiation for achieving comprehensibility such as by repeating and rephrasing as well as modifying and restructuring interactions to increase input comprehensibility.

 

In line with this theory of SLA, a number of French immersion programs for school children were developed in Canada (Source). In these programs, English-speaking children were taught all or some of the curriculum in French, either at the start of schooling (early immersion), after about four years of schooling (mid immersion), or after about six years of schooling (late immersion) (Swain, 2005). These programs were input rich and therefore served as a test of Krashen’s hypothesis that comprehensible input is “the only true cause of second language acquisition” (1984, p. 61). The results of the children’s abilities provided a number of insights. First, the immersion children scored higher on French tests than the children who studied French as a foreign language for 20 to 30 minutes per day. Furthermore, some of the immersion children scored as high as native French-speaking children on some of the French listening and reading tests, providing evidence of the benefits of immersion programs and comprehensible input (Swain & Lapkin, 1982, 1986). However, the speaking and writing abilities of the immersion students differed from the native French-speaking children. The test results indicated that there was a lack of target-like abilities in children who had spent many years in immersion programs (Gass, 2003). Swain compared the results of a number of different grammatical, discourse, and sociolinguistic measures from sixth-grade children from the French immersion program and sixth-grade native French-speaking children. She found that there was a general lack of proficiency on the part of the immersion children (Gass & Selinker, 2008). This led her to question the idea that only input is necessary for acquisition to take place, and she began to search for alternative explanations than the input hypothesis in SLA.

 

As a result of these tests and based on formal and informal observations of the French immersion classrooms in Canada, Swain (1985) developed the output hypothesis. She observed that children in the immersion context did not have the same opportunities to productively use the French language as they did in English, and they were merely using this language for comprehension. Furthermore, she noticed that immersion students spoke more in the English portion of the day than in the French portion of the day. More importantly, the teachers did not require the students to use grammatically accurate or sociolinguistically appropriate language (Swain, 1988). As a result, she postulated that input alone could not account for SLA and that output also has a role in language acquisition:

The argument, then, is that immersion students do not demonstrate native-speaker productive competence, not because their comprehensible input is limited but because their comprehensible output is limited. It is limited in two ways. First the students are not given—especially in the later grades—adequate opportunities to use the target language in the classroom context. Second, they are not being “pushed” in their output.

(Swain, 1985, p. 249)

In this first paper outlining the output hypothesis, Swain (1985) referred to the need for ‘comprehensible output’ in language learning. This refers to an extension of the usual sense of ‘getting one’s message across’ whereby messages can be conveyed using grammatically deviant and sociolinguistically inappropriate language. She suggested that learners need to be ‘pushed’ to produce language that conveys messages in a precise, coherent, and appropriate manner. She called this type of output ‘comprehensible output,’ drawing a parallel with Krashen’s i + 1 comprehensible input (Swain, 1985, p. 248–249).

 

In more recent papers regarding the output hypothesis, Swain stopped using the term ‘comprehensible output’ because she regards it as misleading: it obstructs the idea of output as a process rather than a product (Swain, 2005). She claims that this label has focused research on the product of learning in two main ways. First, it has been taken literally and out of context so that the term ‘comprehensible’ is understood to mean ‘the ability to be understood’ rather than a process of improving output in terms of its informational content in addition to or instead of its grammar, discourse, or sociolinguistic features. Second, she believes that the term comprehensible output as a noun has emphasised the product of learning rather than the process of how learning occurs. As a result, in recent years she has re-emphasised how the output hypothesis views output as part of the learning process rather than a product that is synonymous with what the learner has learnt (Swain, 2005).

 

The process of pushed output can occur during the negotiation of meaning in interactions with others. Mackey (2002) provided empirical evidence for its existence by asking adult ESL students to watch videos of themselves interacting with others and to recall their thoughts when the original interaction occurred. In the following example by Mackey (2002), an interaction occurred between a native speaker (NS) and non-native speaker (NNS). The NNS is pushed to modify their output to make it clearer:

NNS: And in hand in hand have a bigger glass to see.

NS:    It’s err. You mean, something in his hand?

NNS: Like spectacle. For older person.

NS:    Mmmm, sorry I don’t follow, it’s what?

NNS: In hand have he have has a glass for looking through for make the print bigger to see, to see the print, for magnify.

NS:    He has some glasses?

NNS: Magnify glasses he has magnifying glass.

NS:    Oh aha I see a magnifying glass, right that’s a good one, ok.

(as cited in Gass & Selinker, 2008, p. 327)

In the recall comments following this interaction, the learner was able to recognise that their comments were not clear and that the NS was pushing them to produce language that was clearer, more articulate, and more appropriate. As such, output may encourage learners to move from ‘semantic, open-ended, nondeterministic, strategic processing’ predominated in comprehension to a better grammatical processing for better production (Swain, 1995, p. 128). Thus, output would seem to enhance the development of morphology and syntax.

 

 

 

2. The Functions of Output

In its simplest form, the output hypothesis states that “the act of producing language (speaking or writing) constitutes, under certain circumstances, part of the process of second language learning” (Swain, 2005, p. 471). Having established this, the next question that arises is how output plays a role in the learning process. Swain (1995) proposes three main ways in which output may play a role in the second language learning process: (i) the noticing / triggering function, (ii) the hypothesis testing function, and (iii) the metalinguistic (reflective) function. These are examined in turn.

 

 

• The Noticing / Triggering Function

In the language learning process, output may promote ‘noticing.’ One important focus of SLA research has been on examining cognitive processes in second language learning, particularly learners’ attention and awareness of language (e.g. Gass & Varonis, 1994; Robinson, 2001; Schmidt & Frota, 1986). According to the noticing hypothesis (Schmidt 1990, 1993, 1995), learners must consciously notice input for it to become intake. If this is the case and if output can be shown to help with the noticing process, it follows that output may be helpful in the acquisition process.

 

There are several levels of noticing. First, Noticing may take place because something in the target language is frequent or salient (Gass, 1997), and learners may notice this language form and use it in their own output. Schmidt and Frota (1986) proposed a ‘notice the gap principle’ whereby learners may notice the target language form and additionally notice that it is different from their own interlanguage. This can focus learners’ attention on the parts of discourse that are problematic from a productive point of view as learners notice gaps between what they produce and what is produced by speakers of the L2 (Gass & Varonis, 1994). Furthermore, Swain (1995) suggests that learners may notice that they do not know how to express a meaning at the moment when they are attempting to produce it, thus noticing a ‘hole’ in their interlanguage that needs rectifying. In other words, the activity of producing output may prompt learners to consciously recognise that they have a linguistic problem. This may in turn prompt learners to find a solution to this problem, possibly by directing their attention to relevant input such as a dictionary or another person (Swain, 2005). This awareness of a linguistic problem may also trigger the cognitive processes that have been suggested to contribute to SLA, such as processes that allow learners to generate linguistic knowledge that is new or that consolidates their existing knowledge (Swain & Lapkin, 1995).

 

• The Hypothesis Testing Function

The hypothesis testing function of output is based on the claim that output may be, from the learner’s perspective, a ‘trial run’ of how they can produce language, reflecting their hypotheses about how language is used (Swain, 2005). Learners test out the new language that they have encountered and determine whether these new forms are comprehended by their interlocutors. During an interaction, learners may notice a problem with their speech, either through self-introspection or because an interlocutor communicates their misunderstanding. Then, the learner will pay closer attention to this language form. They may, as a result, test out a new hypothesis about how the language is used by reformulating their utterance to make themselves better understood (Choi & Kilpatrick, 2014). An example of hypothesis testing can be seen in the following example:

NNS:  poi un bicchiere

Then a glass

NS:    un che, come?

A what? What?

NNS:  bicchiere

Glass

Recall by NNS: ‘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. Then, when she said “come” (what?), I knew that it was completely wrong.’

(Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000, p. 482)

 

In the comments from the stimulated recall interview, the learner reports that they could not think of the word they needed (vase). Given that the vase did not contain flowers, they decided to use the word glass instead to determine whether that usage was correct. This suggests that they were using the conversation in two ways: first, as a means of testing the hypothesis that the word could be used in a particular context and second, by using the interlocutor’s response as feedback as to whether or not this hypothesis was correct. In this case, the hypothesis was not correct. The hypothesis testing function of output is based on the idea that learners often expect to receive feedback on the language they produce, and they make changes to their output based on this feedback. If they were not testing hypotheses, then they would arguably not make changes to their output following the feedback they receive (Swain, 2005). However, research has shown that learners often modify their output based on the conversational moves that they receive in response to their utterances, such as requests for clarification or confirmation checks. Therefore, they are testing their hypotheses using their output. Pica et al. (1989), for example, found that in a laboratory setting, over one third of learners’ utterances were modified in response to feedback. Furthermore, Loewen (2002) found that in a classroom setting, almost three quarters of learners’ utterances were modified as a result of teachers’ feedback (cited in Swain, 2005). According to Swain (2005), the differences in the levels of modified output in these two studies can be attributed to the different settings. Learners would probably feel more comfortable testing hypotheses in their own classroom setting rather than with a stranger in a laboratory setting.

 

For hypothesis testing to take place, a number of conditions are necessary including alertness, attention, and awareness (Choi & Kilpatrick, 2014). Alertness is characterised by a learner’s receptiveness to the input that they receive (Tomlin & Villa, 1994). It means that the learner is ready for the input and is in a state where they are cognitively capable of processing the incoming information. A learner’s alertness is the first step towards attention, whereby learners focus on a specific part of the input that they need for feedback about their hypothesis (Tomlin & Villa, 1994). The notion of awareness is also important for hypothesis testing, as awareness is required so that learners can detect a problem with their utterances and subsequently try out different forms of modified output.

 

Furthermore, as Gass et al. (2013) point out, the feedback that learners receive from their interlocutors can also play an important role in helping them to determine whether their hypotheses are correct. Nobuyoshi and Ellis (1993) argue that interlocutor feedback is a crucial part of language learning because learners either confirm or disconfirm their hypotheses about the target language based on this feedback. Similarly, Chaudron (1988) argues that learners use feedback to readjust their interlanguage. However, some studies have shown that interlocutors often ignore hypothesis testing episodes when they are ungrammatical but comprehensible, which may lead learners to believe that their hypotheses are correct and that their utterances are grammatically correct when they are not (Choi & Kilpatrick, 2014; Shehadeh, 2003). Learners may require a greater push towards modifying their output when it is incorrect so that successful acquisition may take place.

 

There are a number of different explanations as to why hypothesis testing and modified output may contribute to SLA. In an examination of learners’ think-aloud protocols when producing a written text, Swain and Lapkin (1995) found that the communicative need of a task pushed learners into thinking about their linguistic output and forced them to transition from semantic to grammatical language processing. As a result, they suggest that these learners were able to apply their existing knowledge to new situations and to internalise new language. Conversely, de Bot (1996) argues that the benefit of output and hypothesis testing for language learning is derived from learners’ increased control over language forms and their increased automaticity in processing as a result of producing output. This in turn frees up cognitive space for higher-level processing. Izumi (2000) further suggests that hypothesis testing in output may sensitise the learner to the possibilities of what can and cannot be expressed in the target language (as cited in Swain, 2005). While the explanation of how output contributes to the L2 learning process remains unclear, it would seem that there is a general agreement that hypothesis testing, feedback as a result of this output, and subsequent modified output can all contribute to the learning process in some way.

 

• The Metalinguistic (Reflective) Function

The metalinguistic function of output involves using output to talk about language as a means of mediating language learning (de Bot, 1996). The idea originates from Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory of the Mind where people operate with mediating tools, such as language (Swain, 2005). Through speaking, dialogue, and cooperation with others, learners are able to engage in psychological processes that can subsequently become internalised. That is, learning can take place through dialogues with others (Donato & Lantolf, 1990).

 

Using this theory, Swain (1995) and Swain and Lapkin (1995) developed a number of classroom activities that ask learners to work together in pairs to solve language-based problems in a target language. Through discussions of the problem, learners arguably become more aware of the problem and provide each other with further relevant input based on their shared knowledge or lack of knowledge (de Bot, 1996). This can be seen in the following extract from Swain and Lapkin (1998, p. 331) where two learners are participating in the shared task of writing a story based on a set of picture prompts:

LL1: et brosse les cheveux.

(and brushes her hair)

LL2: et les dents.

(and her teeth)

LL1: Non, non, pendant qu’elle brosse les dents et …

(No, no, while she brushes her teeth and …)

LL2: Elle se brosse … elle SE brosse

(She brushes … she brushes)

LL1: Pendant qu’elle se brosse les dents et peigne les cheveux.

(While she brushes her teeth and combs her hair)

LL2: Ya!

 

As can be seen in this example, the dialogue focuses the learners’ attention on the particular language points of the task and provides opportunities for each member to offer alternatives and to provide input for the other. L1 shows L2 that the verb ‘brosse’ should not be used with hair, and L2 draws L1’s attention towards the reflexive nature of the verbs. Through the dialogue, they each regulate the other’s activity, and they are both provided with opportunities to reflect on their own language use (Swain, 2000). According to Swain and Lapkin (1998), their jointly constructed performance outstrips their individual competencies, and the dialogue represents “collective cognitive activity which serves as a transitional mechanism from the social to internal planes of psychological functioning” (Donato, 1988, p. 8). In other words, the dialogue mediates learners’ learning and may provide an opportunity for this learning to become internalised. Swain (2000) refers to this type of learning as learning through ‘collaborative dialogue.’

 

• Other Functions of Output

In addition to the three functions of output proposed by Swain (1995), other researchers have suggested additional functions of output. One of the most significant of these is output’s function in creating greater automaticity in language use (de Bot, 1996; Gass, 2003). Automaticity refers to the ability to retrieve items from long-term memory during language processing without any delay or with only slight delays (Loewen & Reinders, 2011). Automatic processes can be developed as a result of “consistent mapping of the same input to the same pattern of activation over many trials” (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 134). In terms of second language development, this suggests that a certain amount of practice is needed for language use to become routinized. Therefore, output can contribute to automaticity by providing opportunities for practice.

 

Skehan (1998), drawing on Swain’s (1995) work, summarises the contributions that output can make to the SLA process:

1. Production serves to generate improved input through the feedback that is elicited by learners’ efforts at production.
2. It forces syntactic processing (i.e. obliges learners to pay attention to grammar).
3. It allows learners to test out hypotheses about grammar in the target language.
4. It helps to automatize existing knowledge.
5. It provides opportunities for learners to develop discourse skills, such as by producing ‘long turns.’
6. It is important for helping learners to develop a ‘personal voice’ by steering conversations towards topics that they are interested in contributing to.

 

Ellis (2003) further adds that output can provide learners with ‘auto-input,’ whereby learners can attend to the input provided by their own language production. Therefore, it would seem that output can perform a number of significant functions in the language learning process. In the next section, research into the output hypothesis is examined to determine the empirical evidence that supports claims about its functions.

 

3. Research into the Output Hypothesis

A number of studies have aimed to empirically evaluate the output hypothesis. Many of these have focused on the benefits of output with regards to the acquisition of grammatical structures, and a smaller number have looked at the acquisition of lexical items.

 

• Research into the Acquisition of Grammar through Output

Regarding the benefits of output in the acquisition of grammatical structures, there is still relatively little evidence of its efficacy (Shehadeh, 2002). In one study, Nobuyishi and Ellis (1993) conducted a small scale investigation into the role of output in the development of learners’ use of the past tense in English. They compared three experimental participants with three control participants. The experimental participants took part in a ‘focused meaning negotiation’ whereby they received a clarification request every time they made an error in using the past tense and were encouraged to modify their output. The control participants took part in an ‘unfocused meaning negotiation’ whereby they received a clarification request only when there was a genuine communication problem. One week later, both groups took part in an ‘unfocused meaning negotiation’ interaction. The results showed that, of the three learners from the experimental group, two maintained increased accuracy in using the past tense, whereas none from the control group improved their accuracy. This result seems to lend support to the output hypothesis: the pushed output of the experimental group that focused on one particular linguistic item led to sustained improvements in production. However, the small sample size of the study means that wider conclusions cannot be drawn.

 

Larger studies were carried out by Izumi et al. (1999) and Izumi and Bigelow (2000), and these explored the potential of pushed output in learning counterfactual conditionals. The experimental groups were given texts that included rich examples of the structure and were asked to generate a similar text themselves. The control groups received the same texts but were also asked to complete other tasks like answering comprehension questions. All participants completed a pre- and post-test. The results indicated that while the experimental groups showed significant improvement in their use of structure in the writing tasks, the control groups performed just as well as the experimental groups in the post-test. This indicates that a combination of rich input and noticing activities may be just as effective for learning grammar as activities that ask learners to produce output. However, in a later study about the effects of pushed output on the acquisition of relativization in English, Izumi (2002) found that learners who were asked to reconstruct a text learned more about relativization than those who engaged in input comprehension activities.

 

Morgan-Short and Bowden (2006) studied the effects of meaningful input- and output-based practices on the acquisition of Spanish. Experimental groups received the same input but differed in their meaningful practice activities, which were either input- or output-based. The post-test results indicated that both the input- and output-based practice groups showed significant gains in immediate and delayed interpretation as well as production tasks, indicating that both input- and output-based instruction can lead to linguistic development.

 

These mixed results indicate that the benefits of pushed output for grammar development in second language learning are somewhat elusive and difficult to demonstrate. Thus, Shehadeh (2002, p. 597) commented that “there is still a severe lack of data showing that learner output or output modification have any effect on second language learning.”

 

• Research into the Acquisition of Lexis through Output

A number of researchers have conducted research that attempts to link learners’ opportunities for output with the acquisition of vocabulary. Ellis and He (1999) studied the effects of output, input, and modified input on the acquisition of unfamiliar furniture vocabulary in a group of low-level English learners. All groups carried out a similar design task: they were asked to place pictures of furniture on a plan of an apartment. The first group received pre-prepared instructions that could not be modified, the second group received the same instructions but were able to negotiate and ask for clarification, and the third group was required to give instructions to an interlocutor. Pre- and post-tests of the vocabulary items showed that the third group, which had been asked to produce output, outperformed the other two groups in both receptive and productive tests. This indicates that pushed output was more effective in the acquisition of this vocabulary.

 

In a similar study, de la Fuente (2002) investigated the effects of non-negotiated input, negotiation without pushed output, and negotiation with pushed output on the acquisition of Spanish vocabulary for learners of Spanish as a second language. The results of the post-tests of this study showed that negotiation, both with and without pushed output, had a positive effect on the receptive comprehension of the target vocabulary. Additionally, the learners in the negotiation groups outperformed the learners in the non-negotiation group. However, only negotiation that incorporated pushed output promoted both receptive and productive acquisition of the target words. The findings of this study provide evidence of both the importance of negotiation in facilitating comprehension of L2 vocabulary and the importance of the role of output in the acquisition of productive knowledge of lexical items.

 

These studies’ findings and the findings of others, including Ellis et al. (1994) and Loschky (1994), suggest that negotiation of specific lexical items may aid in vocabulary acquisition “provided that the students have the opportunity to use the items they have begun to acquire and to receive feedback from other speakers” (Ellis et al., 1994, p. 483). Therefore, with regards to vocabulary acquisition, the output hypothesis seems to be supported by the limited empirical evidence that is available.

 

However, it is important to note that the type of output involved can also have an effect on the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. VanPatten (2003) distinguishes between output with or without access to meaning. Output with access refers to “activating the lexical items and grammatical forms necessary to express particular meanings” (2003, p. 63), whereas output without access refers to the production of language that does not require this type of activation, such as the repetition of a lexical item without the intention to convey any meaning. Current SLA processing theories emphasise the greater cognitive demands of developing productive knowledge of L2 as opposed to receptive knowledge, and it describes the benefits that depth of processing can have on language acquisition (Johnson, 1996; Skehan, 1998). Depth of processing refers to the degree of analysis and manipulation carried out in the target language. Processing that requires greater depth of processing (e.g. paraphrasing rather than repeating) results in longer term memory traces (Swain, 2005). Therefore, output that does not require access or that involves very little depth of processing may not aid in vocabulary acquisition. In fact, Barcroft (2006) found that writing target vocabulary as a form of output had a negative effect on acquisition. For English learners of Spanish as a second language, he compared the effects of copying target vocabulary and having no output when learning the target vocabulary. The post-tests revealed that productive learning was higher when learners did not write down the words. These results suggest that forced output without access to meaning may detract from learning words, as it exhausts the processing resources that are needed for encoding novel lexical forms. Similarly, de la Fuente (2006) found that when learners were asked to perform shallow output tasks with vocabulary like repeating words in delayed tests, their retrieval of the lexical items decreased as compared to learners who were asked to perform deeper tasks like online retrieval in information gap activities. However, she also notes that the increased frequency of retrieval in the latter tasks may have contributed to the increase in learning. Therefore, an output of lexical items that promotes deeper processing may lead to more elaborate processing of the form and therefore a more durable memory trace (Izumi, 2002). Additional research is needed in this area.

 

4. Criticisms of the Output Hypothesis

In this brief review of studies that have investigated the influence of learner output on SLA, it becomes clear that results about the output hypothesis are still inconclusive. While a general trend is suggesting the efficacy of output in L2 development, especially with regards to vocabulary acquisition, it still needs to be demonstrated empirically through additional studies on output-task types and grammatical structures. This is especially true because the output hypothesis is not without its critics. Krashen (1998) in particular has argued that Swain’s claims are difficult to support after examining the evidence. He puts forward a ‘scarcity argument,’ arguing that instances of modified or pushed output are too rare to have any significant influence on language development. However, according to Shehadeh (2002), such an argument about the frequency of output may not be relevant. Rather, when modified output does occur, the ‘critical incident’ that provokes it may be useful for acquisition. Krashen (1998) also expresses dubiousness about the influence of output on acquisition because a number of studies have shown that language learning can take place based on input in the absence of output. However, given that Swain (1985, 1995) does not negate the essential presence of input and merely states that output can facilitate acquisition in ways that differ from input, this criticism does not seem relevant. Krashen (1998) further argues that pushing learners to produce output or to modify their output can provoke stress and anxiety in them. While there may be some merit to this argument, think-aloud protocol data from output and feedback studies (e.g. Mackey, 2002; Mackey et al., 2000) seem to suggest that many learners want to receive and learn from feedback concerning their output.

 

5. Summary

According to Swain’s (1985, 1995) output hypothesis, under some conditions and on some occasions, output can facilitate second language learning in ways that are different from input. Output can perform a number of functions in the language learning process: it can help learners to notice language forms and the differences between input and their own output; it can help learners to test hypotheses about language use and receive feedback on these hypotheses; it can help learners to learn through collaborative dialogue with other learners; and it can promote automaticity in language use. Furthermore, it forces learners to move from semantic to syntactic processing so that they need to produce language that is clear, concise, and appropriate. Research evidence on the output hypothesis is mixed, especially with regards to grammatical gains. As of yet, it is unclear what role output plays in language acquisition. Evidence regarding the benefits of output for vocabulary acquisition is clearer. However, this is still an under-researched area, and which task types promote acquisition and which tasks do not remains unclear. Tasks that require deeper language processing seem more useful than tasks that require shallow processing; however, more research needs to be carried out to establish whether this is indeed the case.

 

 

References

Barcroft, J. (2006). Can writing a new word detract from learning it? More negative effects of forced output during vocabulary learning. Second Language Research, 22(4), 487-497.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Choi, Y., & Kilpatrick, C. (2014). Hypothesis Testing in Task-Based Interaction. Applied Language Learning, 23-24, 1-22.

de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46 (3), 529-555.

de la Fuente, M.J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of Spanish L2 vocabulary: the roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (01), 81–112

de la Fuente, M.J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 263-295.

Donato, R. (1988). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second-language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Newark: University of Delaware

Donato, R., & Lantolf, J.P. (1990). The dialogic origins of L2 monitoring. Pragmatics and language learning, 1, 83-97.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamakazi, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension and L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 44, 449–91.

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. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.). The handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 224–255. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gass, S.M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course, 3^rd Edition. London: Routledge.

Gass, S.M., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 283–302.

Gass, S.M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory course, 4th edition. London: Routledge.

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24,541-577.

Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34,239-278.

Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,421-452.

Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. London: Blackwell.

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

Krashen, S. (1984). Immersion: Why it works and what it has taught us. Language and Society, 12, 61-64.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.

Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output?. System, 26(2), 175-182.

Loewens, S., & Reinders, H. (2011). Key concepts in second language acquisition. London: Macmillan.

Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition, pp. 377-393. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: what is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303–24.

Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: Learners’ perceptions about interactional processes. International Journal of Educational Research 37, 379-394.

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive implicit negative feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-97.

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.

Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H.W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on Second Language Development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 31-65.

Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. English Language Teaching, 47, 203-210.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on Negotiation: What Does It Reveal About Second‐Language Learning Conditions, Processes, and Outcomes?. Language learning, 44(3), 493-527.

Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63-90.

Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 17, 368–92.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11, 129–58.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 206–26.

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.). Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning, pp. 1-63. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.). ‘Talking to learn’: Conversation in second language acquisition, pp. 237-326. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: An agenda for acquisitional research. Language Learning, 52, 597-647.

Shehadeh, A. (2003). Learner output, hypothesis testing, and internalizing linguistic knowledge. System, 31, 155-171.

Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input 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. (1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6, 68-83.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson, pp. 125-144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural theory and second language learning, pp. 97-114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning Volume I, pp. 471-483. London: Routledge.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1986). Immersion French at the secondary level: “The goods” and “the bads.” Contact, 2-9.

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

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.

Tomlin, R.S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition, 16(02), 183-203.

VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. London: McGraw-Hill.

‪Oe, Y., & Alam, Y. S. (2013). Picture-Based e-Learning of English Phrasal Verbs: A Comparative Study of the Use of Pictures and L1 Glosses. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 7(supplement), 222-233.‏