Swain and Lapkin （Swain & Lapkin,1994:384） argued that “on each occasion, the students engaged in mental processing that may have generated linguistic knowledge that is new for the learner, or consolidated existing knowledge.” In other words, it was argued that in the process of modifying their IL utterances in the direction of greater comprehensibility, L2 learners were engaged in some restructuring of system which affected their access to the knowledge base, and that this restructuring process was part of second language learning.
1.2.3.2 Hypothesis Testing
The second role of output is hypothesis testing. Producing output is a way of testing a hypothesis about comprehensibility or linguistic well-formedness of their inter-language against feedback obtained from the interlocutors. This function of output relates directly to the notion of comprehensible output proposed by Swain. By producing output, learners can test their hypotheses, and by being pushed in the process of negotiation of meaning, learners can be more accurate in their production. Sometimes this output invokes feedback which can lead learners to modify or “reprocess” their output. Speaking allows the speaker to control the agenda and to take risks and look for feedback on the points of uncertainty in a developing grammar (Swain, 1995). Several studies have been conducted to test this function. The results from the studies related to the hypothesis-testing function of output (Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993; Pica, 1988, 1992; Pica, Holliday, Lewis & Morgenthaler, 1989; Takashima, 1994) show that learners often modify their output in response to the linguistic demands of comprehensible output may have a long-term effect.
1.2.3.3 The Meta-linguistic Function
The meta-linguistics refers to the total sum of knowledge about language which learners have. It is an embryonic form about linguistic form, structure and system which they obtained by reflection and analysis. It is claimed that as learners reflect upon their own target language use, their output serves a meta-linguistic function, enabling them to control and internalize linguistic knowledge (Swain, 1995: 126). In other words, output may cause the learner to engage in more syntactic progressing than is necessary for the comprehension of input. This syntactic progressing may lead to modified or reprocessed output—a possible step toward language acquisition.
The results of the studies focusing on the meta-linguistic function of output (Dnato,1994; Lapierre,1994; Swain,1995) lend some support to the claim that producing language and reflection on it in an attempt to create meaning have positive effects on language learning process. Learners obtain meaning by negotiation; the content of negotiation is the structural form of language relating the form本文来自辣*文~论^文'网 of language with the meaning they attempt to express, learners express the meaning with language, and then reflect the form of language. So output can cause the learner to engage in synta毕业论文http://www.751com.cn ctically based processing from semantically based processing.
In general, the importance of output in learning may be construed in terms of the learners’ active deployment of their cognitive resources. In other words, it is posited that the output requirement presents learners with unique opportunities to process language that may not be decisively necessary for simple comprehension. In proposing the Output Hypothesis, Swain (1985) argued that producing the target language (TL) may serve as “the trigger that forces the learners to pay attention to the means of expression needed in order to successfully convey his or her own intended meaning” (Swain, 1985:249).
Of the three functions of output specified in the current version of the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1993, 1995, 1998), the present study focuses on its “noticing” or “triggering” function. The “noticing“ function of output posits that learners may notice the gap in their IL knowledge in an attempt to produce the target language, which then prompts them to solve their linguistic deficiency in ways that are appropriate in a given context. For example, if learners are left on their own to solve the immediate production difficulties, they may engage in various thought processes that can consolidate existing knowledge (Swain & Lapkin, 1995). On the other hand, if relevant input is immediately available, the heightened sense of problematicity during production may cause the learners to process subsequent input with more focused attention; they may try to examine closely how the TL expresses the intention that they just had difficulty in expressing on their own. In either case, learning is believed to be enhanced through the act of producing language, which, by its mechanisms, increases the likelihood that learners become sensitive to what they can and can’t say in the TL, which leads to the reappraisal of their TL capabilities.