What I learned last class ‘Krashen's Input Hypothesis’ is that output has no functions in acquiring the target language. However, Swain asserts that output does a lot of important functions in SLA.
In the 1980s, the word “output” was used to indicate the outcome, or product, of the language acquisition device. Output was synonymous with “what the learner/system has learned.” The output hypothesis claims that the act of producing language (speaking or writing) constitutes, under certain circumstances, part of the process of second language learning.
According to Swain, there are three functions of output. First, it is the noticing/triggering function. The claim is that while attempting to produce the target language, learners may notice that they do not know how to say or write precisely the meaning they wish to convey. Secondly, it is the hypothesis testing function. The claim 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. If learners were not testing hypotheses, then changes in their output would not be expected following feedback. Furthermore, students were more likely to modify their output, and do so successfully, when they were pushed to do so. It is important for students to actually produce the targeted linguistic items correctly, supporting the notion that in these cases the learners were actively seeking feedback through hypothesis testing. Thirdly, it is the metalinguistic (reflective) function of output. The claim here is that using language to reflect on language produced by others or the self, mediates second language learning.
However, what we need do understand is that it does mean not comprehensible output is responsible for all or even most of our language competence, but under some conditions, output facilitates second language learning in ways that are different form, or enhance, those of input.
When I look back how I have learned English as a second language, I could acquire English through both sufficient comprehensible input and output with appropriate feedback from instructors. Therefore, now, it is hard for me to say whether I have learned English through only input or output. I think that it is not appropriate to consider that there is only one way to learn second language because I think there are various factors which influence for acquiring second language.
In the 1980s, the word “output” was used to indicate the outcome, or product, of the language acquisition device. Output was synonymous with “what the learner/system has learned.” The output hypothesis claims that the act of producing language (speaking or writing) constitutes, under certain circumstances, part of the process of second language learning.
According to Swain, there are three functions of output. First, it is the noticing/triggering function. The claim is that while attempting to produce the target language, learners may notice that they do not know how to say or write precisely the meaning they wish to convey. Secondly, it is the hypothesis testing function. The claim 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. If learners were not testing hypotheses, then changes in their output would not be expected following feedback. Furthermore, students were more likely to modify their output, and do so successfully, when they were pushed to do so. It is important for students to actually produce the targeted linguistic items correctly, supporting the notion that in these cases the learners were actively seeking feedback through hypothesis testing. Thirdly, it is the metalinguistic (reflective) function of output. The claim here is that using language to reflect on language produced by others or the self, mediates second language learning.
However, what we need do understand is that it does mean not comprehensible output is responsible for all or even most of our language competence, but under some conditions, output facilitates second language learning in ways that are different form, or enhance, those of input.
When I look back how I have learned English as a second language, I could acquire English through both sufficient comprehensible input and output with appropriate feedback from instructors. Therefore, now, it is hard for me to say whether I have learned English through only input or output. I think that it is not appropriate to consider that there is only one way to learn second language because I think there are various factors which influence for acquiring second language.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기