陳原艷 張益家 胡偉 游子

Swains (1985)“Output Hypothesis” maintains that output performsthree functions, namely, the“noticing/triggering function”, the“hypothesis-testing” function, and the "metalinguistic" function.Based on the "Noticing Hypothesis", this study aims to investigate the role of the noticing function of output in second language acquisition. The major findings of this research are summarized as follows:1) when composing, the learner could notice linguistic problems in their ineterlanguaeamong which problems arising from vocabulary and sentence were the most prominent. 2) with more attention paid to vocabulary, the learner could notice linguistic forms of various aspects when comparing their original text to the modelsof writing. And they could partially incorporate what they hadnoticed in models into their subsequent revision.3)through models of writing learning, the EG learners performed better than the CG learnersin error correction in Composition2，which proves that output with subsequent input learning has superiority over output without relevant input followed in facilitatingthe acquisition of accuracy of linguistic forms.

language outputnoticingsecond language acquisitionChapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background of the Present Research

For a long time, input was considered to be the only necessary condition for SLA to occur, while output was taken as an indication of language acquisition that had already taken place(krashen,1984; Long 1983). In Krashen's view, output wasthe result of acquisition, not its cause, andlearner's production didnot contribute directly to acquisition. This situation changed with the emergence of some studies in output theory, in particularthe Output Hypothesis by Swain. Swain refined this hypothesis and identifiedthree functions of output in 1995: the noticing (triggering) function, the hypothesis testing function, and the metalinguistic (reflective) function.

Since the Output Hypothesis was put forward, researchers of the SLA field abroad have been conducting relevant experimental studies about its effectiveness in SLA. In contrast, the studies in China mostly werethe introduction of this theory and review of studies abroad. Few experimental studies havebeen conducted concerning this theory. In this case, the present study focuses on the issue of noticing function of the Output Hypothesis and intends to investigate its effects on SLA.

1.2 Research Questions

The present research is to explore the noticing function of output in an attempt to providedirect empirical evidence that output, in the process of composing, plays an important role of promoting noticing and leads to learning by answering the following questions: 1)What linguistic problemswouldL2 learners notice while composing a passage of their own?2) What aspects of language wouldL2 learners notice as they compare their original text to the models of writing? And what impacts of such noticing has on their subsequent revision?3)Wouldthese activities of output and input facilitate L2 learners' accuracy of language use?

Chapter 2 Research Methodology

In this chapter, the research methodology of the study will be presented in detail, including information about the subjects, the instruments employed, the experimental procedures.

2.1 Subjects

40English majors of Liupanshui Normal University participatedin this research. They werefrom two parallel classes of Grade 2008 with 20students in each class. According to the class,the experimental group (EG, N=20) and the control group (CG, N=20) formed so as to meet the design of the experiment.

2.2 Instruments

The instruments used in this research included1) output prompt, 2) questionnaires, 3) modelsof writing.

2.3 Experimental Procedures

The experiment which wascomposed of six steps (step 1, output 1 for both groups; step 2,Questionnaire1 for both groups; step 3 EG's models of writing inputlearningand the underlining task; step 4,EG's output 2; step 5 Questionnaire 2 for EG only; step 6 CG's output 2) wasconducted formally. The experiment was held in each groupin the subjects' own classroomsindependently during the class time. And the subjects in this research werenot allowed access to any aids like a dictionary so that they hadto perform the tasks on their own.

Chapter 3 Results and Findings

This chapter will report and interpret the results of the data collected from this research, and answer the three questionsproposed previously by the researcher.

3.1 Qualitative Analysis

3.1.1 The Results of Both Groups' Questionnaire 1

Questionnaire 1 showed solitude for the problems the subjects had met in Output 1. Specific language aspects were categorized so as to offer thorough descriptions of them. (see table 3-1 below).

Based on the table above,the learners noticed the linguistic problems coming from different aspects in their IL when composing and the most prominent were problems with vocabulary and sentence.

3.1.2 The Results of EG's Questionnaire 2

In Questionnaire 2, the first two multiple choice questions explored to what degree the modelsof writinghad facilitated the EG learners' revision and the third question focused on what specific language aspects the models had impactonin their revision. Their results would be presented respectively.

3.1.2.1 The Results of the Multiple Choice Questions

All EG learners agreed that the models played a positive role in their revision. (see table 3-2 below)

3.1.2.2 The Results of the Open-ended Question.

Different language aspects were listed so as to provide detailed descriptions of the improvements in the EG learners' revision. (see table 3-3)

From the table 3-3 we know the EG learners could partially incorporatewhat they had noticed in the models of writing into their revision and make their modified output.

3.2 Quantitative Analysis

3.2.1 The Results of EG's underlining

In the two modelsof writing, some linguistic forms were underlined by the EG learners as such their noticing assigned to different language items could be examined. (see table 3-4 and table 3-5 below)

Based on the two tables above,the EG learners were able to notice linguistic knowledge of different aspects with their noticing mostly devoted to lexical itemswhen they received the models of writing input learning.

3.2.2 The Results of Both Groups'Errors in Composition1 and Their Correction in Composition 2.

3.2.2.1 The Comparison Between EG&CG in Terms of the Frequency of Errors in Composition 1.

First, as isshown in Table 4-7, Fss=.06 P=.80＞0.05, Fcs=.20 P=.65＞.05. There was equality between EG andCG concerning the variance of the frequency of errors in Composition 1. Second, as the same table demonstrates, Tss=1.56 df=38 P=.13＞.05, Tcs=.44 df=38 P=.66＞.05. Thus, there was no significant difference between EG andCG in terms of the frequency of errors in Composition 1. Namely, the wo groups made the equal errors in Composition 1.

3.2.2.2 The Comparison Between EG&CG in Terms of the Frequency of Error Correctionin Composition 2

As is shown in Table 3-8, Tss=2.60 df=38P=.01＜.05.There was significant difference between EGand CG in terms of the frequency of error correction of theungrammatical simple sentences inComposition 2. Second, as the same table demonstrates, Tcs=1.30df=38P=.20＞.05. Thus, there was no significant difference between EG andCG concerning the frequency of error correction of the ungrammatical complex sentences in Composition 2. Consequently, the EG learners acted better than the CG learners in error correction of simple sentences, yet both groups could not do well in error correction of complex sentences.

3.3 Major Findings

On the basis of the report and interpretation of the results of the data collected, the answers to the three research questions and also the major findings of this researchcan be safely drawn:1) When composing, the learner could notice linguistic problems in their IL among which problems arising from vocabulary and sentence werethemost prominent. 2) With more attention paid to vocabulary, the learner could notice linguistic forms of various aspects when comparing their original text to the modelsof writing. And they could partially incorporate what theyhadnoticed in models into their subsequent revision.3）Through models learning, the EG learners performed better than the CG learners in error correction in Composition 2，which proves that output with subsequent input learning has superiority over output without relevant input followed in facilitating the acquisitionof accuracy of linguisticforms.

參考文獻(xiàn)：

[1]Swain，M.The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. CanadianModern Language Review,1993，59（1）：158-164.

[2]Swain, M., & Lapkin,S.Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate：a step towards second language learning, Applied Linguistics，1995，16（3）：371-391.

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

[4]Tomlin R. & Villa, V. Attention in Cognitive Science and Second Language Acquisiton.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203,1994.

[5]Thoronbury, S. Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promoteNoticing'.ELT Journal, 5: 326-335, 1997.

[6]Vanpatten, Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1990，12（3）：287-301.

[7]Vanpatten, B. Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,1996.

[8]Williams,J., Learner-generated attention to form. In Ellis, R.,ed.Form focused instruction and second language learning, Malden,MA: Blackwell,2001.303-346.

[9]Zeigarnik,B.On finished and unfinished tasks, In Ellis,W.D.ed. A source book of Gestalt psychology, London: Routledge，1999.300-314.

[10]Zimmerman,C.B.Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction. In Coady,J.& Huckin, T.eds, Second Languge Vocabulary Acquisition.Shanghai：Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press，2001.5-19.