AComparativeStudyofInputHypothesisandOutputHypothesis-2019年精选文档

1、A Comparative Study of Input Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis: The essay compares the differences between input hypothesis and output hypothesis as well as their similarities based on literature and empirical studies. As for the differences, theoretical rests and attitudes towards output are taken i

2、nto consideration. In terms of the similarities, both input hypothesis and output hypothesis are comprehensible and modified, have something to do with “i+1 ” and share the same attitude towards pushed output.1 Input hypothesisKrashen (1982) provides five hypotheses, in which he believes that the in

3、put hypothesis is the most important one as it touches upon directly the most fundamental question of second language acquisition (SLA). Based on the hypothesis, he introduces the concept of comprehensible input, namely, language acquisition conforms to the pattern of “ i+1 ”, that is, language acqu

4、isition shall take place if and only if the comprehensible input is just slightly higher than the learners current languageability.2 Output hypothesisSwain (2005, p471) argued that output, by its nature, is not the end of production, but rather a process of the language learning. Therefore, output,

5、if carefully taken care of, can also contribute to the language learning. In order to prove this, she has outlined three functions conducive to second language learning: a) the noticing and triggering function, b) the hypothesis-testing function and c) the metalinguistic function.3 Differences3.1 Th

6、eoretical restsKrashens input hypothesis is fundamentally based on the Nativist Theories, which maintains that the innate biological endowment is the precondition for learners to acquire another language (Diane Larsen-freeman and Michael H. Long, 2000). In this sense, what the second language learne

7、r has to do is to take full advantage of the “language acquisition device” and acquire itsubconsciously. Krashen s “feel ” and “sound” (1982, p10) for the language instead of consciously learning it apparently seeks its theoretical rest from the nativistview of language acquisition.Swains output hyp

8、othesis rests on the information processing theory stating that learning language is no further than learning anything else and it raises a demand on the mental processing ability of humanm ind (MacLaughlin, 1996). Resting on the two different theories, Krashen attaches more importance to the acquis

9、ition part, while Swain seems to place more emphasis on the part of conscious learning and language processing. That is why Krashen posits that:“formal rules or conscious learning, playonly a limited performancein second language ” (Krashen,1982, p16) ; learning only functions after the language has

10、 been produced, in other words, learning itself can not promote language acquisition; and“ going for meaning first, and as a result, we acquire structure” (p21)3.2 Attitudes towards outputKrashens argues that output is conducive to language acquisition through the way of being conducive to providing

11、 comprehensible input.Through citing the research by Lenneberg, he claims that it is possible to acquire a language without even ever producing that language (Krashen, 1982). In order to prove his statement further,Krashen presents a figure to reveal the different roles played by input and output in

12、 SLA, with input being responsible for acquisition and output being the supporting role of providing a medium through which input can take place.To refute Krashen s argument, Swain has launched a research on immersion students. In that research, subjects, although exposed to substantial comprehensib

13、le input of second language, still failed to achieve the similar standard in second language performance. Thereafter, she made some accounts on the experiment result: 1. subjects were lack of opportunities to practice; 2. subjects were not pushed in producing output (Swain, 1985).4 Similarities4.1 C

14、omprehensible input and comprehensible outputKrashen (1982) points out clearly that without understanding the second language, a learner by no means can acquire the language. Evidence is that by only being exposed to a target language does not make any sense in the target language acquisition,provid

15、ed the languageis irrelevant, complicated, or meaningless, be it the case of listening to a non-related radio program, or watchingan incomprehensible TV program. In contrast, positive evidence arises from caretaker speech, foreigner talk, and teacher-talk, in which input has been in advance simplifi

16、ed and thus more comprehensible. In addition,Lightbown(1992) has given a report on an experimental program in Canada, involving subjects who were all beginners at grade three.The students there received only comprehensible input and they were completely free from monitoring, testing and feedback fro

17、m the teacher. They learned entirely depending on their interest and the interesting and meaningful material provided. At the same time, a controlled group receiving a modified audio-lingual program has been tested too. Three years after exposure to English, students were found to have gained advant

18、ages in the fields of description, imitation, and understanding, vocabulary.Similarly, Swain(1985, p732) holds that the way to confirm acquisit ion exists in the learners ability toproduce comprehensible output. Only through comprehensible output, that is language“conveyedprecisely, coherently and a

19、ppropriately” (Swain, 2005,p473), can the three functions of output hypothesis be realized in SLA. Through a comprehensible output, learners are likely to notice and make up their deficiencies through triggering their cognitive processes (Swain,1995);learners are likely to experiment on and test cer

20、tain language uses and usages; and learners are likely to make use of the comprehensible language produced to reflect on their own language (Swain, 2005).4.2 Modified input and modified outputIn order to make input as comprehensible as possible, Krashen puts forwards the concept of optimal input. Gu

21、ided by this concept, input should be modified before presented to the learner. One way of accomplishing this is to simplify the input, such as “slower rate and clearer articulation ”, “more use of high frequency vocabulary” and “syntacticsimplificatio n, shorter sentences ” (Hatch, 1979, cited in K

22、rashen, 1982, p64) etc. Another form of modified input is “to provide non -linguistic means of encouraging comprehension ” (Krashen, 1982, p66).Consistent with Krashen s modification of input, Swain posits (1995) modifying the output, which is a reproduction of the feedback through noticing the gap

23、earns its credit as a part of the learning itself. As has been analyzed in the three functions of the output, Swainattaches great importance to the function of metalinguistic function.“Using language to reflect onlanguage produced by others or the self, meditates second language learning ” (Swain, 2

24、005, p478). Accordingly, Ali Shehadeh has conducted a research as regards self and other-initiated modified output through a context of a task-based interaction. Thirty-five adult participants were trained and tested through tasks of picture description, opinion exchanges and decision making. The re

25、sult showed that self-initiated played a critical role in upgrading modifie d output and “both self -initiations and other- initiations matter for L2 learning ” (2001,p451).Ali Shehadeh also acknowledged that“noticing the gappush learners to consciously reprocess and modify their output toward great

26、er message comprehensibility and accuracy ” (2004, p353).4.3 i+1 and pushed outputBoth Krashen(1982) and Swain (2005) have proposed corresponding measures in meeting the goal of providing maximum quantity of input and output in their respective domains. To be specific, Krashen aims to provide input

27、containing a wide variety of discourse types and insufficient quantity. Quotinghis own words: “to increasethe amount of comprehensible input. Again, if there is enough, i+1 will be provided, and will be provided over and over ” (1982 , p71) In addition to that, Krashen underpins the importance of pr

28、oviding input of complexity, which shares similarities with Swains pushing output which isa little beyond the learner s current level. In providing input which is a bit beyond the learner s current levelof comprehension, Krashen (1982) suggests to resort to the means of context and extra-linguistic

29、information. As a matter of fact, negotiation of meaning, request and confirmation feedback adopted in output aim also at introducing learners to some areas which they have not touched upon. All these risks of learning a language a bit beyond their competence have been proved positive in language le

30、arning (Brown, 2001).Similarly, without sufficient amount of output, Swains three function ofoutput hypothesis can barely take effect, as only through a maximum amount of output can the learner gather sufficient data of language segments; and it is based on these language segments that the learner s

31、ets out to use their output functions to notice, test and correct their language. That is why Swain (1993) posits that learners should be provided with enough opportunities to produce; and learners should be pushed to produce even more.To conclude, the two hypotheses differ from each other in their

32、theoretical rests and their attitude towards output; they also share similarities in highlighting “comprehensible ”, “modified ” and “enough dosage. ” References:1Brown, H.D. Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogyM. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,

33、2001.2Krashen, S. Principles and practice in second language acquisitionM. New York: Pergamon Press,1982.3Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. An introduction to second language acquisition researchM. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000.4Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. How languages are learned (second edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press,999.5MacLaughlin, B. Information processing in second