语言输出理论

1、语言输出 Background Immersion programs in Canada Conclusion Output Merrill Swain The Output Hypothesis Three functions Future directions The opinion of Stephen Krashen and assessmentcontentBackground In the early and mid-1980s,there are two aspects of the context that are important to mention. One aspec

2、t of the context was the dominant theoretical paradigm for second language acquisition (SLA) research at that time (1980s): information-processing theory. The second was the widespread growth of French immersion programs in Canada, the evaluations of which were showing some rather unexpected finding

3、s.BACKImmersion programs in Canada The initiation of French immersion programs in Canada in the late1960s infused parents and teachers with renewed energy and excitement about the teaching and learning of French as a second language (FSL). In these programs, English speaking children were taught som

4、e or all of their curriculum in French beginning with the start of school (early immersion), around grade 4 or 5 (mid immersion), or around grade 6 or 7 (late immersion). Evaluation after evaluation was conducted of these programs 加拿大沉浸计划加拿大沉浸计划BACKConclusion SwainSwain(1995)在对加拿大的法语沉浸式教学进行调查时发现, 课堂

5、上教师讲多听少,学生听多讲少,大部分时间都用于做笔记。 Swain 认为出现这种现象的重要原因之一，在于学习者缺少语言输出机 会，从事语言实践活动太少。 基于这些观察，Swain 得出如下结论：尽管“可理解性输入”对语言习得来说很重要，但不足以充分开发学习者的二语精炼能力。要想提高中介语的流利程度和准确性，学习者不仅需要“可理解性输入”，也需要“可理解性输出”。BACK Different interpretation of the word “output”. In the 1980s, the word “output” was used to indicate the outcome,

6、or product, of the language acquisition device. Output was synonymous with “what the learner has learned”. There has been a shift in meaning from the 80 s to now from output being understood as a noun, a thing, a product to output being understood as a verb, an action, a process.BACKMerrill Swain In

7、troduction: Merrill Swain is a Professor in the Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Department at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at the University of Toronto. Contribution: (1) She developed the output hypothesis; (2) She is also known for her work with Michael Canale on communi

8、cative competence.BACK语言输出假说(The Output Hypothesis) 针对Krashen提出的语言输入假设中的不足,二语习得研究者Swain在1985年提出了语言输出假设(the Output Hypothesis),她反对大量可理解性输入对语言习得所起的决定性作用。Swain 认为,尽管理解输入语对二语学习很重要,但并不能保证学习者在语法准确性方面达到近似本族语者的水平。学习者只有通过使用所学语言才能达到这一点。 Swain(1995)在对加拿大的法语沉浸式教学进行调查时发现, 课堂上教师讲多听少,学生听多讲少,大部分时间都用于做笔记。BACK Swain(

9、 1995) 在其语言输出假设中阐述了输出对语言习得的作用: 1. 注意/ 触发功能( the noticing/ triggering function) ; 2. 假设验证功能 ( the hypothesis function) ; 3. 元语言功能( the meta-linguistic function) 。Three functions First, output has a noticing / triggering function.The claim here is that while attempting to produce the target language (

10、vocally or silently (sub-vocally), learners may notice that they do not know how to say (or write) precisely the meaning they wish to convey. In other words, under some circumstances, the activity of producing the target language may prompt second language learners to notice or recognize consciously

11、 some of their linguistic problems: it may bring their attention to something they need to discover about their second language (possibly directing their attention to relevant input). This awareness triggers cognitive processes that have been implicated in second language learningones in which learn

12、ers generate linguistic knowledge which is new for them, or which consolidate their current existing knowledge (Swain & Lapkin 1995). There have been a number of carefully designed, experimental studies which have examined the effect of output on noticing and acquisition of particular target forms,

13、including Swains research and his students research (e.g., Izumi 2002). The claim here is that output may sometimes be, from the learner s perspective, a “trial run” reflecting their hypothesis of how to say (or write) their intent. Mackeys (2002) study has an excellent example of hypothesis testing

14、 from a learners perspective. The learner is reacting to an interaction episode in which she, another learner and a teacher are involved. During this episode, among other things, the learner is trying to figure out both the meaning of “suite” and how to say it. If learners were not testing hypothese

15、s, then changes in their output would not be expected following feedback.Second, the output has a hypothesis testing functionThe claim here is that using language to reflect on language produced by others or the self, mediates second language learning. This idea originates with Vygotskys sociocultur

16、al theory of mind. Sociocultural theory is about people operating with mediating tools. Speaking is one such tool. In this context, Swain has relabeled “output” as speaking, writing, collaborative dialogue, private speech, verbalizing, and/or languaging in order to escape the inhibiting effect of th

17、e “conduit metaphor” implied in the use of terms such as input and output.The third, the metalinguistic (reflective) function of outputBACK Several directions could be taken. Experimental studies within an information processing framework would seem particularly fruitful. Investigation of the levels

18、 and types of processing that out-put, under different conditions, engenders seems to me to be a particularly interesting route to pursue. Within a sociocultural theory of mind framework, ethnographic and case study approaches would seem to be more valuable at this point in time, although there is c

19、ertainly a place for experimental work. Particularly useful to understand processes and strategies of second language learning will be studies of the collaborative dialogue and private speech of learners as they work to solve language-related problems they face in their language production. By study

20、ing the collaborative dialogue and private speech of learners, according to a Vygotskian sociocultural theory of mind, we are observing learning in progress. Of considerable sociocultural interest are other broader questions about verbalizing, or as I am now calling it, “languaging”. Languaging is t

21、he use of language to work through cognitively complex thoughts. Future directions that research about the Output HypothesisBACK The opinion of Stephen KrashenThe CO hypothesis is linked to what is sometimes called the “interaction hypothesis”, the hypothesis that we acquire language from interactin

22、g with others. As stated in this way, the interaction hypothesis is vague. A part of interaction that does not contribute to language acquisition is the output produced by the language acquirer. a strong version of the interaction hypothesis, one that asserts that interaction is necessary for langua

23、ge acquisition, is not correct. Such a hypothesis of acquisition can occur from reading and listening. In addition to the massive data showing that reading can promote language development, A weaker version of the interaction hypothesis is that interaction can be a good source of comprehensible input. The CO hypothesis is closely related to the need hypothesis. it is widely assumed to