The Metalinguistic Function
Using language to reflect on language produced by others or the self, mediates second language learning.
Swain and Lapkin (1995; 1998; 2002)
Swain and Lapkin refer to ‘collaborative dialogue’ which is when speakers are engaged in solving linguistic problems and building knowledge about language.
The act of producing language (speaking
and writing) constitutes part of the process of second
The Hypothesis Testing Function
Output may sometimes be, from the learner’s perspective, a “trial run” refelecting their hypothesis of how to say or write their intent.
When a scientist desires to refine his understanding of a specific scientific subject, he often begins by reading one or more review articles about that topic. As he reads, he compares the facts given in the review with his mental model of the subject, refining his model and updating it with current information. Review articles do not present new discoveries. The essential facts given in the review must be referenced to the peer-reviewed scientific research literature, so that the reader can check the assertions and conclusions of the article and obtain more detailed information about aspects that interest him.
Krashen's widely known and well acceptedtheory of second language acquisition has had a large impact inall areas of second language research and teaching since the 1980s.
Stephen Krashen (University of Southern California) is an expert inthe field of linguistics, specializing in theories of language acquisitionand development. Much of his recent research has involved the study ofnon-English and bilingual language acquisition. During the past 20 years,he has published well over 100 books and articles and has been invitedto deliver over 300 lectures at universities throughout the United Statesand Canada.
The factual information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.
The Natural Order hypothesis is based on research findings (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Fathman, 1975; Makino, 1980 cited in Krashen, 1987) which suggested that the acquisition of grammatical structures follows a 'natural order' which is predictable. For a given language, some grammatical structures tend to be acquired early while others late. This order seemed to be independent of the learners' age, L1 background, conditions of exposure, and although the agreement between individual acquirers was not always 100% in the studies, there were statistically significant similarities that reinforced the existence of a Natural Order of language acquisition. Krashen however points out that the implication of the natural order hypothesis is not that a language program syllabus should be based on the order found in the studies. In fact, he rejects grammatical sequencing when the goal is language acquisition.
The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to explain how thelearner acquires a second language – how second language acquisition takes place. The Input hypothesis is only concerned with 'acquisition', not 'learning'.According to this hypothesis, the learner improves and progresses when he/she receives second language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1'. We can then define 'Comprehensible Input' as the target language that the learner would not be able to produce but can still understand. It goes beyond the choice of words and involves presentation of context, explanation, rewording of unclear parts, the use of visual cues and meaning negotiation. The meaning successfully conveyed constitutes the learning experience.
According to Krashen, the study of the structure of the language canhave general educational advantages and values that high schools and collegesmay want to include in their language programs. It should be clear, however,that examining irregularity, formulating rules and teaching complex factsabout the target language is not language teaching, but rather is "languageappreciation" or linguistics.
The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.
It appears that the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited insecond language performance. According to Krashen, the role of the monitoris - or should be - minor, being used only to correct deviations from 'normal'speech and to give speech a more 'polished' appearance.
In the early 1980's, the field of SLA was dominated by Krashen's input concept and immersion programs in Canada.
However, results of the immersion program raised doubt about the input hypothesis, leading to the 'output' explanation.
Mackey provides evidence for reality of the notion of 'pushed output'
The 3 Functions of Output
“While attempting to produce the target language, learners may notice that they not not know how to say/write precisely the meaning they wish to convey… this awareness triggers cognitive processes that have been implicated in second language teaching”
Izumi (2002) conducted a detailed study on this:
'To examine whether output promotes noticing and learning of English relativization'
He studied 4 treatment groups and 1 comparison group.