OntheRoleofLanguageInputandLanguageOutputinSecondLanguageAcquisition英语毕业论文.doc

毕业论文On the Role of Language Input and Language Output in Second Language Acquisition毕业论文诚信承诺书本人郑重承诺：我所呈交的毕业论文On the Role of Language Input and Language Output in Second Language Acquisition是在指导教师的指导下，独立开展研究取得的成果，文中引用他人的观点和材料，均在文后按顺序列出其参考文献，论文使用的数据真实可靠。On the Role of Language Input and Language Output in Second Language AcquisitionABSTRACTNowadays, the phenomenon of fake prosperity in language teaching in China has sparked a hot debate. Many language learners who take part in exams such as IELTS and BEC find that it is difficult to get a high score in speaking and writing compared to listening and reading. In addition, many college students who passed the exam of CET4 and CET6 cannot use English appropriately, even though they have learned this language for over 10 years. The root of this phenomenon is that Chinese students always neglect the importance of achieving a balance between language input and language out in second language acquisition. This paper mainly analyses the reason why language learners should pay attention to the balance between language input and language output, as well as the important role of language input and language output in second language acquisitionKey Words: language input language output second language acquisition试论语言输入与语言输出在二语习得中的作用摘 要 如今，我国外语教学“假繁荣”现象十分严重，学习外语者比比皆是，可是实际数据显示我国学生在参加国外考试如雅思，BEC等考试时，相比起听力与阅读部分，口语以及写作部分的成绩偏低。另外，有许多通过英语大学四六级考试的学生感叹自己学的是 “哑巴英语”,所学的内容不会运用，不能与人交流。究其原因，是因为许多语言学习者在第二语言习得过程中，忽略了语言学习的本质，更突出的问题是割裂了“语言输入”与“语言输出”之间的关系，在外语学习的过程中没有给予两者同等的重视。有鉴于此，通过学习Krashen的语言输入理论以及swain的语言输出理论，笔者意图通过本研究揭示“语言输入”与“语言输出”在外语教学过程中的关系与作用及其两者间的平衡对二语习得产生的重要性，并借此提高广大外语学习者对此的重视程度。摘要：语言输入 语言输出 二语习得 ContentsAbstract.摘要.Literature Review.11.1 Input Hypothesis.11.1.1 An Overview of Input.31.1.2 The Limitations of Input Hypothesis.31.2 Output Hypothesis.41.2.1 Definition of Output.41.2.2 An Overview of Comprehensible Output Hypothesis.41.2.3 Functions of Output.51.2.3.1 The “Noticing/Triggering” Function.51.2.3.2 Hypothesis Testing.61.2.3.3 The Meta-linguistic Function.6Clarification of Relevant Concepts. 92.1 Acquisition VS. Learning.92.2 Second Language VS. Foreign Language.10The Relationship between Input and Output.113.1 Input Precedes Output.133.2 Output Supplements Input.14The Balance between Language Input and Language Output in TEFL Classes for Chinese Students.174.1 The Importance of Balance between Language Input and Language Output.184.2 Classroom Activities.194.2.1 Roughly-tuned Input.204.2.2 Finely-tuned Input.214.2.3 Communicative Output.21Conclusion.22References.23Acknowledgements.24 Literature Review1.1 Input HypothesisInput Hypothesis, advanced by Krashen, a famous American applied linguist, in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, is an all-round theory concerning second language acquisition (SLA). Meanwhile, it is the most influential and controversial theory in second language acquisition research. Such influences still exist till now. Krashens Input Hypothesis is similar to Chomskys theory on first language acquisition in some respects, such as the function of Language Acquisition Device (LAD) in the process of language learning.Krashen states that language input plays an identical part with Language Acquisition Device. Together with language input, a learner can construct a series of internal expressions of a good language, in other words, construct an independent language system outside the learners first language (Jia Guanjie, 1996).According to Krashen, an important condition for language acquisition to occur is that the acquirer understands (via hearing and reading) input language that contains structure “a bit beyond” his or her current level of competence. In other words, the language which learners are exposed to should be just far enough beyond their current competence that they can understand most of it but is still challenged to make progress.Krashens widely known and well-accepted theory of second language acquisition has had a large impact in all areas of second language research and teaching since the 1980s. The theory consists of five main hypotheses.(1) The acquisition-learning hypothesisKrashen believed that adults have two different ways to develop competence in a language, namely, language acquisition and language learning.Language acquisition is a subconscious process not unlike the way a child learns language. Language acquires are not consciously aware of the grammatical rules of the language, but rather develop a “feel” for correctness. Language Learning, on the other hand, refers to the “conscious knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them and being able to talk about them.” Thus language learning can be compared to learning about a language.The acquisition-learning distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in Stephen Krashens theory and the most widely known among linguists and language practitioners.(2) The monitor hypothesisThe language that one has subconsciously acquired “initiates our utterances in a second language and is responsible for our fluency,” whereas the language that we have consciously learned acts as an editor in situations where the learner has enough time to edit, is focused on form, and knows the rule, such as on a grammar test in a language classroom or when carefully writing a composition. This conscious editor is called the Monitor.The monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning and defines the influence of the latter on the former. The monitoring function is the practical result of the learned grammar.(3) The natural order hypothesisThe natural order hypothesis is based on Krashens research findings which suggested that the acquisition of grammatical structures follows a “natural order” which is predictable.(4) The input hypothesisThe input hypothesis answers the question of how a language acquirer develops competency over time. It states that a language acquirer who at “level i” must receive comprehensible input that is at “level i+1.” We acquire, in other words, only when we understand language that contains structure that is “a little beyond” where we are now.The input hypothesis is the result of Krashens attempt to explain how the learner acquires a second language. In other words, this hypothesis is Krashens explanation of how second language acquisition takes place.(5) The affective filter hypothesisMotivation, self-confidence, and anxiety all affect language acquisition, in effect raising or lowering the “stickiness” or “penetration” of any comprehensible input that is receivedThe affective filter hypothesis embodies Krashens view that a number of “affective variables” play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition. Theses variables include motivation, self-confidence and anxiety.1.1.1 An Overview of InputInput is probably one of the most important concepts in SLA. The relation between input and SLA is always a key aspect in the field of SLA. Input, itself, includes all the language signals, i.e. words, phrases and sentences of one particular language, and signals from other language that may be brought in through translation, comparison and so on. In language learning it means the linguistic material to which the learner is exposed, i.e. the learners experience of the target language in all its manifestations (Sharwood Smith, 1993). In the classroom teaching, the effect of linguistic input is closely connected with the strategy for its transmission to the students. It seems to be a direct and informative signal which conveys semantic sense (Andersen, 1981; Larsen-Freeman, 1991; Nunan, 1995). In language acquisition, input plays an indispensable role. However, the role of input in language acquisition is always a controversial question. Behaviorists and Mentalists differ greatly on it.1.1.2 The Limitations of Input HypothesisWe should also point out that there are many limitations to the Input Hypothesis theory. First, Krashen emphasizes the importance of input in language acquisition, but the definition of input is narrow, as he advocates natural input while neglecting non-natural input, this is impossible for Chinese learners of English to be in the real situation of communication. Whats more, Krashen emphasizes much more on the input than output; this will impede students communicative ability. Krashen theory also neglects the role of learners themselves, without positive motivation and attitude of learning foreign language; the input alone would not be enough for SLA. 1.2 Output Hypothesis Among many methods and techniques that aim to facilitate the development of the learners first language grammar, the role of output in SLA is relatively unexplored. A common assumption is that output is only an indication of SLA that has already taken place and does not play any significant role in language acquisition process (Krashen, 1985). But this assumption has come into question since the publication of Swains (1985) seminal article, in which the Output Hypothesis was first proposed.1.2.1 Definition of OutputSwain put forward the theory of “Output Hypothesis” in relation to second language acquisition. In her work, there appeared some terms synonymous with output such as “Producing language” (Swain,1995:125), “producing the target language”, “language performance”, “using the language” and “speaking or writing” (Swain, 1995:127), and "production or use” (Swain&Lapkin,1995:371). It seems that output in Swains term is dynamic; it not only refers to the language produced by learners but also the process of producing the target language. We will adopt Swains view of output here.The definition of output can be found in Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics as part of that of “input”: (in language learning) language which a learner hears or receives and from which he or she can learn. The language a learner produces is by analogy sometimes called “output” (Richards, J.C., Platt, J. &Platt, H., 2000:227). In this case, output simply means the language a learner produces compared with what the learner receives.1.2.2 An Overview of Comprehensible Output HypothesisBased on findings from studies that Swain conducted on immersion students in Canada, she found that although immersion students were provided with a rich source of comprehensible input, their inter-language performance was still off-target, that is, they were clearly identifiable as non-native speakers or writers (Swain, 1984, 1985). She therefore doubted whether comprehensible input on its own is sufficient for second language acquisition.Output helps us make our knowledge more “automatic” through practice and by providing a domain for error correction, which helps us arrive at a better version of our rule. This approach is also known as “direct teaching” or formal instruction.The comprehensible output hypothesis maintains that language acquisition occurs when we say something and our conversational partner do not understand, forcing us to notice a gap in our competence. We then try again until we arrive at the correct version of the rule.Swains hypothesis about the role of output in foreign language learning and her notion, output in dialogue, has beneficially enlarged our scope and deepened our understanding about how the process of output production can facilitate learning process. All her ideas about output can be concisely generalized in one sentence: learners production of the target language in a specific context can facilitate their learning process, leading to their improvements of the target language.1.2.3 Functions of OutputIn applied linguistics (in its narrow sense), much work has been focused on the role of input and comprehension. Although the importance of output had drawn attention from some western researchers, no systematic study of it had been conducted until Swains (1985, 1995) research of Canadian immersion program. The situation at home is even more unsatisfactory. So far as this writer knows, there is little study that is concerned with the function of output in Chinas foreign language teaching.Since the function of output to enhance the fluency has now been widely known and accepted, Swain does not include this in her hypothesis. Instead, she proposes the other three functions that output serves in promoting accuracy.1.2.3.1 The “Noticing/Triggering” FunctionThe “noticing/triggering” function is also referred to as consciousness-raising function. Swain(1995) argues that language production may trigger learners noticing of problems existing in their inter-language, that is, in producing 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 dont know, or know only partially of producing the target language may prompt second language learners to consciously recognize some of their linguistic problems; it may bring to their attention something they need to discover about their L2 (Swain, 1995:125-126). This may trigger cognitive process which might generate linguistic knowledge that is new for learners, or which consolidate their existing knowledge （Swain & Lapkin,1994）.Swain and Lapkin found that there were 190 occasions in which students encountered a linguistic problem in their output. In each case the students forced themselves to modify their output toward greater message comprehensibility. That is, communicative needs forced students to move from semantic to syntactic analysis of the target language.Swain and Lapkin （Swain & Lapkin,1994:384） argued that “on each occasion, the students engaged in mental processing that may have generated lin