TEACHER to TEACHER
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Volume 4, Number 2 Fall 2008 IN THIS ISSUE CURRENT RESEARCH TEACHER To TEACHER The Expanded Output Hypothesis Improving Language Acquisition by ......2 R. Joseph Ponniah & Stephen Krashen as an Adult. An informal list of brainstorms by Jason Fritze, Stephen Krashen and Karen Rowan Bridging the Cultural Divide: ....................................................................... 35 Korean Americans Visit Their Heritage Homeland What are you reading right now? ................................................4 by Grace Cho by Linda Li and Kirstin Plante.....................38 Personal theories of language acquisition Access to Books and a Quiet Comfortable among heritage language speakers Place to Read: A Practical Guide to Establishing by Grace Cho & Stephen Krashen ...............12 a Free Voluntary Reading Program by Jason Fritze and Karen Rowan ................39 Heritage Language Development: Exhortation Links and Resources ....................................41 or Good Stories? by Christy Lao & Stephen Krashen .............. 17 Do Students Like What is Good for Them? An Investigation of the Pleasure Hypothesis with IJFLT: A free on-line, peer-reviewed Middle School Students of Mandarin quarterly journal dedicated to by Christy Lao & Stephen Krashen .............. 19 communicating research, articles and helpful information regarding language VOA Special English – A Neglected acquisition to support teachers as they Multimodal Resource endeavor to create fluent, multilingual by Bill Templer .............................................. 21 students. Research Index • Teacher-to-Teacher Index • Submission Info • Contact Us • Subscription Info Page 1 The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching © Fall 2008 Swain makes it clear that this function includes er- The Expanded Output Hypothesis ror correction, a process that encourages learners to modify their consciously learned rules. It also includes the function of output originally described in Swain (1985): modifying one’s output when the listener does Authors: R. Joseph Ponniah and not understand, the idea being that if a conversational Stephen Krashen partner fails to understand the transmitted message, then learners assume they made a mistake and form Dr. R. Joseph Ponniah what they think is a grammatically correct sentence in Assistant Professor order to help the interlocutor understand the message. National Institute of The metalinguistic function claims that reflecting on Technology the language produced either by one or by others is Trichy helpful for language development. It is, Swain notes, a India means of “building knowledge about language” (p 478). [email protected] In her earlier statements, Swain made it clear that output contributed to language development but was Dr. Ponniah has a Ph.D in English from a supplement, not a replacement for input. This is not Madurai Kamaraj University. He has elev- clear in the 2005 paper. In fact, language production is en years of working experience as an ESL now “in a star role” (p. 480). teacher at Arts and Science Colleges and at Two points need to be made about this expansion of the Engineering colleges in India. He is current- Output Hypothesis. ly working as a Lecturer in English at Mepco Schlenk Engineering College, affiliated to Related to conscious learning, not acquisition Anna University, Chennai, India. The first point is that each function in the expanded output hypothesis is clearly related to conscious learn- Stephen Krashen ing, not subconscious language acquisition. Noticing, in this case, is conscious not subliminal, (Swain, 2005, University of Southern California (Emeritus) p. 474) and will help learners “consciously recognize” Los Angeles, CA their problems. Hypothesis testing, according to Swain, is the testing of consciously held hypotheses about language, grammar rules and specific vocabulary n her most recent statement on the Output items, and the metalinguistic function is by definition IHypothesis, Swain (2005) distinguishes three involved with conscious knowledge. In fact, consciously possible functions output can have. All three, it is learned knowledge is sometimes referred to as metalin- hypothesized, can contribute to language development. guistic knowledge. 1. The noticing /triggering function Throughout, Swain assumes that conscious learning 2. The hypothesis testing function is a necessary (or at least helpful) step in developing 3. The metalinguistic (reflective) function second language linguistic competence. The claim of the noticing /triggering function is pres- ent when producing output learners “may notice that Important lacunae they do not know how to say (or write) precisely the Important arguments against this version and previous meaning they wish to convey … the act of producing versions of the output hypothesis are not considered or … may prompt second language learners to recognize even mentioned: consciously some of their linguistic problems” (p. 474). 1. Studies ( Truscott, 1998; Krashen, 2003; Ponniah, Because “they cannot say what they want to say” (p. 2008) show the limits of consciously learned language 474), learners make guesses based on their previous competence, specifically the findings that this kind of knowledge, pay more attention to input, or get help. knowledge only shows up on measures in which per- The claim of the hypothesis testing function is that formers “output may sometimes be … ‘a trial run’ reflecting (a) are thinking about correctness, or focused on their hypothesis of how to say (or write) their intent (p. form, a state of mind that is unnatural to most 476). people, Research Index • Teacher-to-Teacher Index • Submission Info • Contact Us • Subscription Info Page 2 The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching © Fall 2008 (b) have time to access learned rules, which typi- References cally is not the case during real conversation, (c) know the rule, a formidable constraint because Boice, R. 1994. How Writers Journey to Comfort and rules are very complex and are often misstated in Fluency. Westport, CT: Praeger. grammar books (Murphy and Hastings, 2006). Moreover, consciously learned knowledge appears to Krashen, S. 1994. The input hypothesis and its rivals. be fragile, typically available only for a short time after In N. Ellis (Ed.) Implicit and Explicit Learning of it is studied (Krashen, 2003). Languages. London: Academic Press. pp. 45-77. 2. The instances of modified and improved output because of communication failure, and lack of evidence Krashen, S. 2001. More smoke and mirrors: A critique that it contributes to language acquisition (Krashen, of the National Reading Panel report on fluency. Phi 2003) are scarce. Delta Kappan 83: 119-123. 3. Studies (Truscott, 1996, 2005) show the inefficacy of error correction. Krashen, S. 2003. Explorations in Language Acquisi- 4. Language acquisition is possible without output, tion and Use. Portsmouth: Heinemann. as in research from studies of free reading (Krashen, 2001, 2007). Krashen, S. 2007. Extensive reading in English as a 5. Studies show that adding output does not increase foreign language by adolescents and young adults: language competence (Krashen, 1994, Mason, 2004). A meta-analysis. International Journal of Foreign This newer version of the output hypothesis must face Language Teaching 3, 2: 23-29. this counterevidence. Post-script: The Role of Output Mason, B. 2004. The effect of adding supplementary Output can contribute indirectly to language acquisi- writing to an extensive reading program. International tion by inviting input. It also can make a powerful Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 1,1: 2-16. contribution to cognitive development. Numerous stud- Murphy, B. & Hastings, A. 2006. The utter ies and case histories confirm that “writing makes you hopelessness of explicit grammar teaching. The smarter,” that writing helps us reexamine our old ideas International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, and is the source of new ideas (Elbow, 1973; Boice, 2,2: 9-11 1994; Krashen, 2003). Speaking and discussion can also perform this func- Ponniah, R. J. 2008. Free voluntary reading and the tion. As Elbow (1973) has pointed out, speaking can acquisition of grammar by adult ESL students. The help us clarify our thinking, just as writing does: International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 4, If you are stuck writing, or trying to 1: 20-22. figure something out, there is nothing better than finding one person, or more, to talk to. If they don’t agree or have Swain, M. 2005. The Output Hypothesis: Theory and .), trouble understanding, so much the research. In E. Hinkel (Ed Handbook of Research in better – so long as their minds are not Second Language. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 471-483. closed. This explains what happens to me and many others countless Truscott, J. 1996. The case against grammar correction times: I write a paper, it’s not very in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46: 327-369. good; I discuss it with someone; after fifteen minutes of back-and-forth I say Truscott, J. 1998. Noticing in second language something in response to a question or acquisition: A critical review. Second Language argument of his and he says, “But why Research, 14: 103-135. didn’t you say that? That’s good. That’s clear (p. 49). Truscott, J. 2005. The continuing problems of oral grammar correction. International Journal of Foreign The research, however, does not show that the positive Language Teaching, 1, 2: 17-22. cognitive benefits of output affect language acquisition.