论文部分内容阅读
1. An Overview of Output Hypothesis
In 1980s， both Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis and Long’s Interaction Hypothesis hold that SLA depends on the availability of comprehensive input before the learner’s internal processing mechanism can work （Ding， 2004）. However， the Canadian linguist， Merrill Swain， criticizes Krashen and Long for their failure to recognize the importance of “comprehensible output” and therefore puts forward Output Hypothesis in 1985.
Swain’s Output Hypothesis was based on her unexpected findings of the French immersion programs in Toronto in 1980s. These programs aimed to help students meet the bilingual requirement for civil service positions in Canada. By testing， Swain found that though these students’ scored high in some skills of interaction， such as listening comprehension， language fluency， and discourse functions， yet their grammatical accuracy was not that satisfactory. Moreover， these students were reluctant to use their L2 in peer interactions. The students participating the programs had got sufficient amount of L2 input but made little output.
Based on Merrill Swain’s output hypothesis， output plays a prominent role in L2 learning and it mainly performs three important functions：
①Noticing function
While attempting to produce the target language， learners may “notice a gap between what they want to say and what they can say， leading them to recognize what they do not know， or only know partially”（Swain 1995：125）. In other words， the activity of producing the target language may prompt second language learners to notice or recognize consciously some of their linguistic problems： it may bring their attention to something they need to discover about their second language
②Hypothesis-testing function
From the learner’s perspective， output may sometimes be a “trial run”， which provides students with the opportunity to try out new language forms and structures as students make best use of their languages to meet communicative needs. They make experiments with their language to see what works and what does not work （Ding， 2004）.
③Meta-linguistic function
Output facilitates the learning of various rules about L2 and L2 use. It may encourage learners to discuss explicitly their doubts and questions about language and， as a result， may assist them in learning from outside experts， learning form their peers， or working to co-construct knowledge with their peers （Ding， 2004）. 2. The relationship between input and output
The most basic assumption of “Output hypothesis” is that spoken or written output language helps in second language acquisition. The cultivation of speaking and writing abilities can benefit the absorption of language input， so as to achieve the purpose of language output. Teachers need to guide the students to change the roles from passive recipients of language knowledge into active participants in the language learning process.
If the learners only accept input， not through practice， most learners eventually cannot acquire the target language even if there are a large number of input. If you want the input to be absorbed and internalized， you need to practice through the output activities. Therefore， output is not only the result of input but also processed by the absorption process.
3. Enlightenment on English teaching
As “output hypothesis” plays such an important in language acquisition， what are the implications for our language teaching？ Based on my teaching experience， I have derived a few key points that I would like to share with you.
First， we need to recognize the importance of output. English teachers in China have long been paying more attention to the importance of the input rather than output. The teacher-centered teaching method is adopted， which features that teachers’ talking time （TTT） far outweighs students’ talking time （STT）. Students are spoon-fed and intake knowledge passively. Thus， we should give equal importance to both input and output. Students should be provided with enough time to carry out the activities so as to promote the full development of students’ language ability. In order to reduce TTT and increase STT， pair work or small group work can be adopted which gives students more opportunities to use English and deepens their understanding of the target language points.
Second， teachers should create a variety of output activities， such as role play， group discussion， story telling and essay writing. In addition， in order to arouse students’ interest in learning and practice， and to enhance their participation， teachers can make full use of the learning resources outside of the textbooks. For example， select fascinating and suitable English movies and TV shows for students to dub or act out. Last year， the movie “Frozen” won students’ favor so we held the short play competition for students to show their talent and practice oral English. Through various effective forms of output， students’ oral and writing skills are gradually improved. Third， speaking and writing skills should also be taken seriously in examinations. At present， our country commonly exists the problems of time-consuming， poor efficiency and dummy English in Foreign language teaching. The long existing English examination system still focuses on students’ receptive skills， i.e. listening and reading. However， writing and speaking， as two productive techniques， which reflect the students’ comprehensive ability of the English language are seldom tested. Therefore， English teachers spend most of the time training students’ receptive skills at the expense of the cultivation of speaking and writing. Dumb English and high mark but poor ability have almost become byword of Chinese English learners. So， it is necessary to reform the examinations and also attach great importance to the productive skills. Only through these ways can Chinese students can avoid Mute English and speak a fluent English.
Last but not the least， teachers should spare no efforts to build a democratic and lively circumstance in class which can not only enhance students’ interests and desires in study but also form an incentive for students to be active in language outputs in class. According to Krashen’s Affective filter hypothesis， the optimal acquisition will take place when learner has low anxiety and is not worried about “saying face”. Teachers should be tolerant with the languages errors committed by students and be more supportive when students fail so as to reduce the students’ psychological barriers and enhance their self-confidence. When students feel safe in class， they will be more wiling to express themselves in front of others， contributing to the improvement of oral and writing abilities.
Some may criticize Swain for having no direct evidence that pushed out put promotes L2 learning. Still， the output hypothesis occupies an undeniable place in SLA literature largely because her criticism of the input hypothesis is based on solid observation （Ding， 2004）. Actually， both input and output are essential to second language acquisition. As a result， we should make full use of these two factors and get as much as input as well as output as possible to make our language acquisition faster and more accurate.
With the economic and social development， the exchanges between China and other countries are on the rise， talents good at English are badly needed in our country. We English teachers should try our best to improve students’ comprehensive English abilities so as to participate well in international communication.
References：
[1]Krashen，S.（1985）.The Input Hypothesis：Issues and Implications.London：Longman.
[2]Swain，M.（1993）.The output hypothesis：just speaking and writing aren’t enough.Canadian Modern Language Review，158-164.
[3]Swain，M.（1995）.Three functions of output in second language acquisition.Oxford：Oxford University Press.
[4]丁言仁.第二语言习得研究与外语学习[M].上海：外语教育出版社，2004.
[5]饶素梅.Swain“输出假设”对我国英语教学的启示[J].科技视界，2013，（05）：117，186.
In 1980s， both Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis and Long’s Interaction Hypothesis hold that SLA depends on the availability of comprehensive input before the learner’s internal processing mechanism can work （Ding， 2004）. However， the Canadian linguist， Merrill Swain， criticizes Krashen and Long for their failure to recognize the importance of “comprehensible output” and therefore puts forward Output Hypothesis in 1985.
Swain’s Output Hypothesis was based on her unexpected findings of the French immersion programs in Toronto in 1980s. These programs aimed to help students meet the bilingual requirement for civil service positions in Canada. By testing， Swain found that though these students’ scored high in some skills of interaction， such as listening comprehension， language fluency， and discourse functions， yet their grammatical accuracy was not that satisfactory. Moreover， these students were reluctant to use their L2 in peer interactions. The students participating the programs had got sufficient amount of L2 input but made little output.
Based on Merrill Swain’s output hypothesis， output plays a prominent role in L2 learning and it mainly performs three important functions：
①Noticing function
While attempting to produce the target language， learners may “notice a gap between what they want to say and what they can say， leading them to recognize what they do not know， or only know partially”（Swain 1995：125）. In other words， the activity of producing the target language may prompt second language learners to notice or recognize consciously some of their linguistic problems： it may bring their attention to something they need to discover about their second language
②Hypothesis-testing function
From the learner’s perspective， output may sometimes be a “trial run”， which provides students with the opportunity to try out new language forms and structures as students make best use of their languages to meet communicative needs. They make experiments with their language to see what works and what does not work （Ding， 2004）.
③Meta-linguistic function
Output facilitates the learning of various rules about L2 and L2 use. It may encourage learners to discuss explicitly their doubts and questions about language and， as a result， may assist them in learning from outside experts， learning form their peers， or working to co-construct knowledge with their peers （Ding， 2004）. 2. The relationship between input and output
The most basic assumption of “Output hypothesis” is that spoken or written output language helps in second language acquisition. The cultivation of speaking and writing abilities can benefit the absorption of language input， so as to achieve the purpose of language output. Teachers need to guide the students to change the roles from passive recipients of language knowledge into active participants in the language learning process.
If the learners only accept input， not through practice， most learners eventually cannot acquire the target language even if there are a large number of input. If you want the input to be absorbed and internalized， you need to practice through the output activities. Therefore， output is not only the result of input but also processed by the absorption process.
3. Enlightenment on English teaching
As “output hypothesis” plays such an important in language acquisition， what are the implications for our language teaching？ Based on my teaching experience， I have derived a few key points that I would like to share with you.
First， we need to recognize the importance of output. English teachers in China have long been paying more attention to the importance of the input rather than output. The teacher-centered teaching method is adopted， which features that teachers’ talking time （TTT） far outweighs students’ talking time （STT）. Students are spoon-fed and intake knowledge passively. Thus， we should give equal importance to both input and output. Students should be provided with enough time to carry out the activities so as to promote the full development of students’ language ability. In order to reduce TTT and increase STT， pair work or small group work can be adopted which gives students more opportunities to use English and deepens their understanding of the target language points.
Second， teachers should create a variety of output activities， such as role play， group discussion， story telling and essay writing. In addition， in order to arouse students’ interest in learning and practice， and to enhance their participation， teachers can make full use of the learning resources outside of the textbooks. For example， select fascinating and suitable English movies and TV shows for students to dub or act out. Last year， the movie “Frozen” won students’ favor so we held the short play competition for students to show their talent and practice oral English. Through various effective forms of output， students’ oral and writing skills are gradually improved. Third， speaking and writing skills should also be taken seriously in examinations. At present， our country commonly exists the problems of time-consuming， poor efficiency and dummy English in Foreign language teaching. The long existing English examination system still focuses on students’ receptive skills， i.e. listening and reading. However， writing and speaking， as two productive techniques， which reflect the students’ comprehensive ability of the English language are seldom tested. Therefore， English teachers spend most of the time training students’ receptive skills at the expense of the cultivation of speaking and writing. Dumb English and high mark but poor ability have almost become byword of Chinese English learners. So， it is necessary to reform the examinations and also attach great importance to the productive skills. Only through these ways can Chinese students can avoid Mute English and speak a fluent English.
Last but not the least， teachers should spare no efforts to build a democratic and lively circumstance in class which can not only enhance students’ interests and desires in study but also form an incentive for students to be active in language outputs in class. According to Krashen’s Affective filter hypothesis， the optimal acquisition will take place when learner has low anxiety and is not worried about “saying face”. Teachers should be tolerant with the languages errors committed by students and be more supportive when students fail so as to reduce the students’ psychological barriers and enhance their self-confidence. When students feel safe in class， they will be more wiling to express themselves in front of others， contributing to the improvement of oral and writing abilities.
Some may criticize Swain for having no direct evidence that pushed out put promotes L2 learning. Still， the output hypothesis occupies an undeniable place in SLA literature largely because her criticism of the input hypothesis is based on solid observation （Ding， 2004）. Actually， both input and output are essential to second language acquisition. As a result， we should make full use of these two factors and get as much as input as well as output as possible to make our language acquisition faster and more accurate.
With the economic and social development， the exchanges between China and other countries are on the rise， talents good at English are badly needed in our country. We English teachers should try our best to improve students’ comprehensive English abilities so as to participate well in international communication.
References：
[1]Krashen，S.（1985）.The Input Hypothesis：Issues and Implications.London：Longman.
[2]Swain，M.（1993）.The output hypothesis：just speaking and writing aren’t enough.Canadian Modern Language Review，158-164.
[3]Swain，M.（1995）.Three functions of output in second language acquisition.Oxford：Oxford University Press.
[4]丁言仁.第二语言习得研究与外语学习[M].上海：外语教育出版社，2004.
[5]饶素梅.Swain“输出假设”对我国英语教学的启示[J].科技视界，2013，（05）：117，186.