Reaction Paper
The Output Hypothesis
According to Swain (1993) on the journal “The Output Hypothesis: Just Speaking and Writing Aren’t Enough”, “The Output Hypothesis proposes that through producing language, either spoken or written, language/acquisition may occur.” (p.159). In this chapter, the author states that have been proposed four different ways in which output may help in the process of second language learning. The first one says that practicing the language we are learning helps us to improve our language skills and develop a meaningful learning. That is the reason why teachers try to make their students participate more in class using the speaking skill; however, students need more than just speaking just to speak. The second way refers to forcing the learners to move from semantic processing to syntactic processing. The third way is about hypothesis testing, where students can test themselves by using an expression from L2 and see if they work. And the last way is related to feedback, where the teacher gives the learner his opinion about his performance, and because of this method, the learner takes this new information and is able to modify his output. The Output Hypothesis is also divided into three different functions: Noticing function, Hypothesis-testing function, and Metalinguistic function. In this first function, the learner notices the mistakes his performance or work has without the teacher’s help. In the second one, when the learner notices these mistakes mentioned previously, he tries new structures in order to correct them, putting emphasis on grammar errors. In the last function, the learner makes a reflection about his mistakes and how he was able to correct them; this way, the learner acquires a complete knowledge about the language, in order to put it in on practice in a future.
After having investigated about The Output Hypothesis, we can say that we agree with many ideas that the author explains in her hypothesis. Firstly, it is important to mention that, from our point of view, the idea of output or production (speaking and writing) that Swain shows us in her work is very important in the learning process. These two skills can be really beneficial for beginners since through them, teachers can encourage them and as a consequence, improve their language abilities. Another point that we consider important, is the idea that feedback plays an important role in the process of second language acquisition. We consider that through feedback, learners can receive help from their teachers to understand what they have to change or improve in their work. Nonetheless, teachers do not give their students the right answer, instead of that, they give the learners the knowledge and the tools to auto-review their work or performance and realize by themselves what is wrong. Making learners speak as much as they can in class, seems like a proficient way of improving language. In view of the fact that if students are constantly practicing, they will be able to develop their language skills faster. Although the author believes that this strategy could not work because the learners could tend to speak just to speak, we consider that if the learner does not have a high level of the proficiency in the language he is learning, he must create the structures of what he is thinking about before saying it aloud at the moment of speaking. Thus, it could be impossible for him speaking just to speak. According to the three functions of The Output Hypothesis, the first function, which refers to noticing where the mistake is, is extremely important the way we notice an error by ourselves. This means that the learner is understanding the new content. We could not put it into practice at the time of doing it, with a greater repetition, we can be able to acquire it, though. Besides, in the second function, the learner knows what he wants to say and searches for all possible ways of doing it, by means of attempts. And finally, we have the reflection, which works as the third step to acquire a foreign language. This works by thinking about how to communicate without repeating the same mistakes that have already been corrected and learned, either by oneself or by someone else.
To conclude with this reaction paper, we can say that, in general, we agree with the ideas that Swain present us about The Output Hypothesis. Certainly, we would change some details of it, such as the fact that the learners could tend to speak just to speak, without improve their linguistic abilities. Anyhow, we believe that this theory is quite accurate since it allows teachers to understand deeply how their students acquire L2; in addition, these are some of the reasons we choose to write about The Output Hypothesis.
References
● Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
● Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis: Just Speaking and Writing Aren’t Enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
● Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
● Swain, M. (1998). The Output Hypothesis and the role of prompts in corrective feedback. In Second Language Learning Theories (pp.175-178). New York, United States: Routledge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFLECTION
My weakest work is a reaction paper. In general, I have quite a few grammatical and syntactic mistakes, but I am certainly not proud of my writing here. The way in which I joined my ideas with of the author's ones, my evaluation about the article that I analyzed were not enough to demonstrate the level of proficiency that should exist in an academic work. Undoubtedly, I must work on improving my connectors, my grammar and I need to find a better way to specify my ideas, make them clearer and have the ability to explain them more precisely. A lot to improve.