Chapter OneIntroduction
1.1 Background of the Study
The early 1980s has witnessed the naissance of the Comprehensible InputTheory in second language acquisition (SLA) field. Proposed by Krashen (1985), thistheory claims that comprehensible input is the only sufficient way for languagelearners to acquire the target language. For many years, under the influence of Inputtheory, a vast number of researchers have been carried out to prove that the role ofcomprehensible input is of paramount importance. Krashen (1989) even assumes thatoutput only signals the occurrence of second language acquisition. However, as thereis a growing number of published works in SLA field, many scholars voice theirdoubts about Krashen’s theory. These researchers find that learners exposed to tons ofcomprehensible input still cannot display an excellent language proficiency. Thesescholars turn their attention to output.Against this backdrop, Merill Swain (1985) advances Output Hypothesis. Swain(1985) reevaluates the role of output in SLA and argues that output supplies learnerswith the chance to use language in context and in a meaningful manner (p. 252). Also,Swain puts forward four functions of output: the hypothesis-testing function, thenoticing function, the fluency function and the meta-linguistic function. Among them,theoretically and pedagogically speaking, the noticing/triggering function, assuming apivotal position, has received a great deal of ink in the SLA scholars’ works whichmainly deal with pedagogical or linguistic issues. Most previous studies are concernedwith noticing and acquisition of target linguistic forms. There is usually a posttest inthese studies to test whether learners acquire these target forms or not. Strictlyspeaking, the period between the posttest and treatment is not long enough in thesestudies, so it may be difficult to prove the acquisition issue. These linguistic forms arerelatively difficult grammatical structures or new target language vocabulary whichsecond language learners seldom use in their daily life. In addition, many researchersutilized more than one type of output-based task in their experiments. It is not clearwhether the previous output task has priming effects on the following task.Furthermore, the topic of output tasks in these researches may not interest all thelearners, for the designers of these experiments may not take learners’ (participants)background and knowledge into consideration.
..........
1.2 Purpose and Significance of This Study
The purpose of present study is to make analysis of the facilitative role ofoutput in promoting the production of target linguistic forms by Chinese College students specializing in non-English majors. To be specific, theoretically speaking,this study aims to test the role of output in the meaning-based situation to facilitatelearners to notice the gap between their interlanguage (IT) and target language (TL).The noticing generated by output assists them in shifting their focus from mainly onmeaning to mainly on form (broadly speaking, “focus on meaning” and “focus onform” is a group of concepts which are different from Michael Long’s “Focus onform”. His FonF is associated with “Focus on Forms”), which can be measured by theproduction of target linguistic forms. From pedagogical perspective, the current studyis designed on the basis of the current writer’s observation during teaching process.According to the observation, students know the meaning of some target linguisticforms, but they cannot produce them in their own writing automatically. They usuallyproduce the synonyms of the target linguistic form. The current study sets out to dealwith this pedagogical issue.
........
Chapter TwoTheoretical Framework
The study investigates the potentially facilitative role of output onimprovement of production of target linguistic forms. To be specific, this study aimsat testing the role of output in the meaning-based situation to facilitate learners tonotice the gap between their interlanguage (IL) and target language (TL). “Noticingthe gap” generated by output assists them in shifting their focus mainly from onmeaning to mainly on form, which can be measured by the production of targetlinguistic forms.The design of this study is based on Focus on Form, which is proved to berelatively efficient to facilitate learners to acquire linguistic forms, so Focus on Formis elaborated in the first place in this Chapter. Grounded on this instructional approach,the present study seeks to explore the role of output in improving the production oftarget linguistic forms. Two research questions in Chapter Four are put forward basedon output. Corresponding hypotheses in the same chapter are posed based on Swain’sOutput Hypothesis, Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis and VanPatten’s Input Processing.The same package of theories also assists in interpreting results in Chapter Six. Thesetheories would be also presented in this chapter.
2.1 Long’s Focus on Form
During past decades, there is a tension between needs for communication andfor language itself in language teaching. Within this field, for a relatively long time,many linguistics and teachers support Focus on Forms. They insist that languageshould be taught in an isolated way. At the other end of teaching method spectrum,contrary to isolated pedagogical method, Focus on Meaning advocates submersion orimmersion teaching. Marring merits of Focus on Forms and Focus on Meaning andovercoming their demerits, Focus on Form is widely accepted as a relatively efficientteaching method.The recent years have witnessed Focus on Form gaining a considerable groundin second language teaching and acquisition field. Proposed by Michael Long, thepivotal motivation behind Focus on Form is the weakness inherent in Focus on Formsreferring to the language teaching dealing chiefly with rules and Focus on Meaningexpecting students to pick up language by themselves in a flood of input. As a balancebetween two more extreme approaches, this method temporarily shifts students’ focusfrom mainly on meaning to on language itself in a class whose focus is predominatedby meaning and communication (Long, 1991, p. 45-46).
.............
2.2 Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis
The central purpose of Focus on Form is to bring linguistic forms to learner’sattention in the overriding meaning-based situation, since there is a consensus in SLAfield that noticing/awareness/consciousness plays a crucial role in languagedevelopment, which is proved by numerous researches (e.g., Ellis, 1995,1997; Gass,1997; Schmidt, 1990, 1993;).Researchers (e.g., Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 1990, 1993, 1994; Tomlin &Villa, 1994) define noticing differently. Taking the purpose of the present study intoconsideration, the author adopts Schmidt’s definition. He defines “noticing” when hemakes analysis of “consciousness”. In Schmidt (1990), consciousness consists of three aspects. In the first place, there is “consciousness as awareness” which containsthree levels of awareness. They are “perception, noticing and understanding”.Perceptions are not necessarily conscious. “Noticing” is defined as “availability forverbal report” (Schmidt, 1990, p. 132). Noticing something equates being aware ofsomething. After that, we can conduct conscious comparison between what we justnotice and what we have noticed on other occasions. This situation is referred to thelast level “understanding”. The second perspective is “awareness as intention”. Thelast aspect is “awareness as knowledge”. In some studies (e.g., Leow,1997, 2001),“noticing” and “attention” can be utilized exchangeably. So is the current study.
..........
Chapter Three Literature Review ..........18
3.1 Review of Studies on Noticing Function of Output Abroad..........18
3.2 Review of Studies on Noticing Function of Output at Home ........23
3.3 Limitations of Previous Studies on Noticing Function of Output ...........25
3.4 Some Special Points of the Present Study......27
Chapter Four Research Design....29
4.1 Purposes of the Present Study .............29
4.2 Research Questions and Hypotheses..............30
4.3 Theoretical Framework for Research Questions and CorrespondingHypotheses ....30
4.4 Experimental Design.......35
4.5 Operationalization of Variables...........38
4.6 Instructional Procedure of the Current Study .........40
Chapter Five Methodology...........42
5.1 Participants...........42
5.2 Target Linguistic Forms ............45
5.3 Instruments...........48
5.4 Pilot Study ............54
5.5 Data Collection and Statistical Analysis ........60
Chapter FourResearch Design
4.1 Purposes of the Present Study
The aim of present study is to make analysis of the facilitative role of output inpromoting production of target linguistic forms by Chinese College studentsspecializing in non-English majors. In particular, theoretically speaking, this studyseeks to test the role of output in the meaning-based situation to facilitate learners tonotice the gap between their interlanguage and target language. The noticinggenerated by output assists them in shifting their focus mainly from on meaning tomainly on form, which can be measured by production of target linguistic forms.From pedagogical perspective, the current study sets out to address a pedagogicalproblem. According to the author’s observation, students usually know the meaning ofsome target linguistic forms, but they cannot produce them in their own writing. Theyusually produce linguistic forms which have the same meaning of that target linguisticform.The first research question is concerned with Phase 1. In this phase,participants read input material firstly and then recall what they have remembered asaccurately as possible. The current researcher labels this stage as “input-output” stage.The question dealt in this stage is whether producing target linguistic forms can beimproved by the input-output activities. The first research question is presented as(1) Do input-output activities result in improved production of target linguisticforms?This research question is based on Output Hypothesis by Swain, NoticingHypothesis by Schmidt and Input Processing by VanPatten and some other theories.Swain (1995) argues that output has “noticing/triggering” function. Thistheory hypothesizes that output leads second language learners to recognize linguisticproblems in their interlanguage; that is, learners notice the gap between what theywant to convey and what they can express.
.........
Conclusion
The current study aims to investigate the facilitative role of output on theimprovement of production of target linguistic forms by non-English major Chinesestudents. To be specific, theoretically speaking, this study sets out to test the role ofoutput in the meaning-based situation to facilitate learners to notice the gap betweentheir interlanguage and target language. The noticing generated by output assists themin shifting their focus mainly from on meaning to mainly on form, which can bemeasured by the production of target linguistic forms. From the pedagogicalperspective, the current study is designed on the basis of the current writer’sobservation during teaching process. According to the observation, students know themeaning of some linguistic forms, but they cannot produce them in their own writing.They usually produce the linguistic forms which have the same meaning of thatlinguistic form.
..........
References (abbreviated)