Merrill Swain tput Hypothesis: Just Speaking - bachdg Puind Writing Aren’t Enough’ sagen who stn hel ele nec in Fp ime education for approximately two decades, I am frequently, ee reieaa seh tan ees pie ie ena ea wish now that I had kept a fil those anec : clan ‘and detail, and are unique for the insights they contribute oo ao ang owes Te secs have Come HOM PIS ‘cover at eae fs ec spel) teased ofthe nein Jearners themselves which have provided much of the stimulus: shanti thinking about “the output hypothesis,” This brief paper outlines . pater thinking and some of the implications it has for immersion pedagogy it 7 sib npg an er BH iva yoong woman vo aj several of us spoke with a young wom erate secondary sco Shh atest el meson posan nh ne ncn es sr ee ean Shaw ue cr Gein ws ‘ope one ae cty aed or goes nfo so a ana eling tafe snes aba se Wt Montreal and about the most recent immersion course she had taken, we asked hher what they mostly did in class: is done on your 1 we did a lot of reading and a Tot of that is Stes eT Yoo aaa a hl wes aoa it We ‘That's all I can remember, is reading fied if you had more archer: Do you think that you would have pro 9 researc tits 0 speak ls O10 speak i smal 00 Student: {think so, 1 wouldn't mind being able to sit down with don’t just let me go when I say the odd word in English. I just add them in, and don’t hit me back with “This is the word in French, This is “© 199 The Canaian Moder Language Ravew/iaRewe onaiene de anes vanes, $0, (Oot, The Output Hypothesis 189 Researcher: In other words, you feel that a person in the stores you were in {in Montreal would be a much harsher critic than your teachers? Student: Think so. ‘This student does not just want to be involved in conversations in French but ‘wants to be “pushed” to do better, to stretch her knowledge of French. Sbe often ‘knows once she has said something that it “wasn’t quite right,” and thinks about how she might have said it bette. She seeks feedback about her French and tries to incorporate that feedback into her future language use. Like many second language leamers, she is uying to take responsibility for her own learning, This is in essence what the output hypothesis is about. The Output Hypothesis ‘The output hypothesis proposes that through producing Language, either spoken or written, language acquisition/leaming may occur (Swain, 1985). Four ways in which output might play a role in the process of second language learning have. been proposed. What comes to mind immediately is wat language production Provides the opportunity for meaningful practice of one's linguistic resources Permitting the development of automaticity in their use. ‘This is an issue of fluency rather than accuracy, and corresponds to our intuitions that one gains in fluency by using the language as frequently as possible. It is one of the reasons ‘teachers try to give students opportunities to speak in class. But speaking just to speak is not enough. Students need more than this. A second way in which producing language might serve in the language Teaming process is that it may force the leamer to move from semantic processing to syntactic processing. As Krashen (1982) has suggested: “In many cases, we do not utilize syntax in understanding—we often get the message with a combination of vocabulary, or lexical information plus extra-linguistic information” (p. 66). Gary and Gary (1981) state, in speaking of comprehension- based approaches to language teaching, “Comprehension—at least all but the most advanced levels—allows many linguistic signals to be ignored: redundant ‘grammatical and semantic functions such as concord, definite/indefinite “ wing, speaking and seni (Swain & Lapkin, in preparation). What is revealed in the transcripts is ihe extraordinary way in which the teach ‘student amet now seems tnguste acu nets OWEN complex Teacher: Quelle sorte de rayons sont ‘nuisibles? Sont nocifs, out? Student: Les rayons ulwa-violets, Teacher: ° VoilA, ies rayons ultra-violets. Je vais Iécrire ici. Quelle est ad poylicippte dd des effets de ces rayons ultra-violets our 's totalement par la couche d’ozone? Student: Ths cansent ta cancer dv peau, Teacher: ‘Ah oui, ils causent te cancer, uh “peau” 5 uh “peau”. C'est masculin Feminin? Ta réponse n'est pas corecte, Done c'est?a ae Merrill Swain Such examples only touch the surface of the wide variety of strategies scachers can usin teacher-Led sessions to encourage the reprocessing PY students aearpcir own initial output. Lyster (1993) diseusses others under the genera ‘as the examples above show, student ‘rubric of “la négociation de la forme.” But, caer toes in teacher-led discussions tend to be short and syntactically Simple aera ako need opportunities 1 engage in extended discourse wich wit Push their Linguistic competence {0 is Timit as they attempt to express their ideas ‘Collaborative leaning can provide just such occasions. “There is already a research literature that shows that group work —3 type of cotlabortive Tearing--results i greater quantity of output and negotiation SSeaning than that found in teacher-ronted classes (Long & Posts, 1985) Negotiation of meaning, accomplished through such jnteractional moves as weetfcation requests and confirmation. checks bave been shown 40 resi ik rested output (Pica etal, 1989). Interestingly thas also been demonstat That more negotiation of meaaing may occur when two nonnative speakers fateracting tian when a native-speaker and anonnative speaker are inerstg (Waronis 2 Gass, 1985), a finding that supports the use of group work amonk students, “The typeof task assigned in collaborative activites is important, On i i depend the extent of negotiation, the type and length of discourse ‘engaged in, portunities for equal participation by stndenis, and the degree of student sorervement, Activities may last several minutes (Kagan, 1997) or seven months (Sharan & Sbaran, 1992). In segular classrooms, and in all likelihood in second language classronns several components have been identified as conducive to suocesstul collabora: Teasing, ‘These include thoughtful planning of te asks rations) apDrcash the construction of groups, accountability by each participant for ihe sycces completion of the assigned task and the dev ‘of social skills necessary fa the group to work effectively (Olsen & Kagan, 1992). A fh ang import Gomponett is thatthe task results in postive interdependence amongst #8 aoevers, Positive interdependence means tat each participant depends in sine vray on others in the group (0 lam and complete the task. Fests Interdependence fosters interaction and assoes that all group members Pron ite the collaborative activity, ‘The output hypothesis suggests that a particular genre of collaboraiy activities might be especially useful for seaond language leaming. "The act esald be ones where the focus of discussion is the target Fanguage itself, wi Ndonts reflect together on their own output, reprocessing and modifying i their collective knowledge permits. In ongoing research, Kowal (in re Peer mining the imeraction becween pairs of grade eight immersion students £8 anne eae enaceage that they have listened to several times. Priori © Guy, 1D, & Gary, N, (1981). Talking = Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative learning The Output Hypothesis fmt ete which gh tht eaming wil be ented enh eo tzoatut e mei ft te passage elt The expect students nepoition of fom as they The range of activites that could fi ‘on sociolinguistic differences betwee a aad eas conta ie formal nd informal, wa writen and ee Plural nouns. They ti Correct telling of ime, They alee or a 10-minute exerci a tars sudo sowed sods poceng tosh omen besct cae Or ethnic mix. The it he iainme 1993) esa raced by the students for outa =e pe a analytiques et expérientiell ee Of activity “a réussi & es Sree este inégrer es svt tant6t la communication et tant flexion su sete ae = tt la réflexion sur ce Secehiaaeetets vette méme communication,” tha scond a age eam engender, as edt we sates 7 uri etitos we nds ecounge sens ote ae prac 2 reas of speakin peel cab hjpoede basses te ng and writing a second if it students mus ae ris" tough he Kins of activites lined stone. Te OWN hash could email a semester-long project ONT: ‘ARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION Note 'My thanks to Alister Cums Harley and s} n for ve ming, Birgit Hazley f Birgit Harley and Sharon Lapkin for reading and References Coming, A (1990). eingiic “atone! Biking in second legunne composing. Wristen Com composing, Writen Communication, 7, Tones ne Koval oral M. Ue pean). enh im French Pption ute pions ates and pro, framing. FAD. tes, OSE. Une may be dangerous to your lingu y of Toront 8 Linguistic sity of Toronto, bat The ete ora mach nes pis (on listening comprehe ion in foreign language instruction. Rea 2 ii einace Keaton. (982) Pres and prac tice in second 7 Ort: Poganca ios “lon Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group ‘San Juan Capistrano. CA: Resourenc far WOTK, interlanevare talk and.164 Merrill Swain guage acquisiton, TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-228 Lyster, R. (1993). La négociation de la forme: Stratégie analytique en classe immersion. Montieal: Dept. of Eaves tion in Second Languages, McGill Uni- versity ‘Olsen, R. & Kagan, S. (1992), Aboutco- ‘operative learning. In C. Kessler (Ed), Cooperative language learning (pp. 1- 30). Englewood Cliffs, NI: Prentice Hall Regents Pica, T., Holliday, L Lewis, Nu & Morgenthler,L. (1989), Comprebeasi ble output a5 an outcome of linguistic tion (pp. 167-183). Amsterdam: Jobn Benjamins Sharan, ¥.,& Sharan, S. (1992). Expand. ing cooperative learning through group investigation, New York: Teschers College Press. Swain, M. (1985), Communicative com: ‘tence: Some roles of comprehensible input and curput in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235. 253), Rowley, MA: Newbury House ‘Swain, M, & Lapkin, S. (én preparation) ‘The integration of language and content teaching” A miero-analysis. demands on the learner. Studies in Sec- oad Language Acgustion 11,6390. Watons.E. M.. & Gass S. (1985). Non naliveinon-native conversations: A ‘model for negotiation of meaning. Ap. plied Linguistics, 6, 71-90. Schachter, J. (1984). A universal input condition. In W. Rutherford (Bd.), Universals and second language acquisi- QUOTABLE QUOTES FROM THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS “In a language course there is so much memorization and so much tyrannical discipline by grammatical rules that our students desperately ‘welcome the free air of the realm of ideas. Let us not make a fetish out of the idea of the Direct Method... [if one insists that students treat [ideas] in the foreign language, their mouths become tombs of silence. there must be a place for literature in our classrooms.” ‘Morgan Kenney, Is there a place for literature in our classrooms? 1963, Vol. 19 (1), p. 40-42, Electronic Learning: from an advertisement by White Electronic Development Corporation Lud., Toronto, for equipment that recorded the student's voice to allow ‘comparison with the master voice. The New Concept 1964, Vol. 19 (2), p. 15 G. Richard Tucker Language Learnin; 2 for the 21: 7 Challenges of the North ee Tres Trade Agreement On this nts ecasan of te Bie anniversary of the Canadian Modern Langu: ‘apan Pleased to have an opportunity to speculate about decchos eee Second language leaming and teaching for the 2ier Coane Which follow, frst reflect can \reement, and then conclude by describing e langua; : ajo development over the coming canine and teaching in which I foresee Pervasive Monolingualism Daring my 13 year tenure (1978. inguistics in Washington, DC, 1 i ston foreign language connec nee BBY Concerned with te lace of residents. This pervasive dome effecively in an increasingly ily interdependent world, ‘fom that new and more desirable reality + However, we area long way