Dil Öğrenimi ve Öğretiminde Merrill Swain’in Çıktı Hipotezinin Eleştirisi

Abstract

Çıktı Hipotezinin geliştiricisi Merrill Swain, İkinci Dil Edinimi alanındaki önemli isimlerden biri olmuştur. Teorisini, öğrencilerin sadece bir dilde girdi işleme yoluyla tam dilbilgisi yeterliliğine erişemediklerini ileri sürerek Stephen Krashen’in Girdi Hipotezini tamamlayıcı olarak önermiştir. Çıktı Hipotezi, çıktı ile ilgili cevaplanmamış sorulara ışık tutması açısından oldukça başarılı olmuştur. Bununla birlikte, hipotezin neyi açıklamak istediğini yorumlamada hala bazı eksiklikler vardır. Bu nedenle, bu yazının amacı, anlaşılabilir çıktıların operasyonel bir tanımının eksikliği, çıktı örneklerinin azlığı ve öğrenenleri dil üretmeye zorlamaktan kaynaklanan sorunlara odaklanarak Çıktı Hipotezini eleştirel olarak gözden geçirmektir.

Keywords

• Çıktı teorisi
• Fark etme fonksiyonu
• İkinci dil edinimi
• Öğrenci kaygısı

A Critique of Merrill Swain’s Output Hypothesis in Language Learning and Teaching

Abstract

Merrill Swain, who coined the Output Hypothesis, has been one of the important figures in the Second Language Acquisition field. She propounded her theory as complementary to Stephen Krashen’s Input Hypothesis suggesting that learners cannot attain full grammatical competence merely through input processing in a language. The Output Hypothesis has been quite successful in terms of shedding some light on unanswered questions related to output. However, there are still some deficiencies in interpreting what the hypothesis intended to explain. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to critically review the Output Hypothesis by concentrating on the deficiency of an operational definition of comprehensible output, scarcity of output instances and problems arising from forcing learners to produce language.

Keywords

• Learner anxiety
• Noticing function
• Second language acquisition
• The output theory

References

1. Beniss, A.R., & Bazzaz, V.E. (2014). The impact of pushed output on accuracy and fluency of Iranian EFL learners' speaking. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 2(2), 51-72. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1127288
2. Bygate, M. (2006). Areas of research that influence L2 speaking instruction. In E. Uso-Juan, & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 159-186). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
3. De Costa, P., Crowther, D., & Maloney, J. (2019). Investigating world Englishes: Research methodology and practical applications. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
4. Doqaruni, V. R. (2013). The relationship between communication strategies and noticing function of output hypothesis in teacher talk. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 9(1), 176-205. Retrieved from: http://www.jlls.org/vol9no1/176-205.pdf
5. Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44(3), 449-491. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770. 1994.tb01114.x
6. Eskildsen, S. (2012). L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62, 335–372.
7. Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom's taxonomy. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology (pp. 41-47). Retrieved from https://textbookequity.org/Textbooks/Orey_Emergin_Perspectives_Learning.pdf
8. Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: a consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non‐native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language teaching, learning and testing (pp. 75– 95). London: Longman.

9. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams, (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 180-206). New York, NY: Routledge.
10. Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 459–479. doi: 10.1177/1362168807080963.
11. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK. Pergamon Press Inc.
12. Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output? System, 26, 175-182. doi:10.1016/S0346251X(98)00002-5.
13. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Complexity theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams, (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 227-244). New York, NY: Routledge.
14. Liming, Y. (1990). The comprehensible output hypothesis and self-directed learning: A learner’s perspective. TESL Canada Journal, 8(1), 09-26. doi:10.18806/tesl. v8i1.575
15. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
16. Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second language learning theories. London, UK: Routledge.
17. Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In J. Richard & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191– 226). London: Longman.
18. Peker, H., & Özkaynak, O. (2020). A critical review on the equivocal definition of comprehensible input and the misleading use of the term “acquisition.” Journal of Language Education and Research (Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi), 6(1), 238-250. doi:10.31464/jlere.617587
19. Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11,63-90. doi: 10.1017/s027226310000783x
20. Rassaei, E. (2015). The effects of foreign language anxiety on EFL learners' perceptions of oral corrective feedback, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 87-101. doi:10.1080/17501229.2013.837912.
21. Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. Roothooft, H., & Breeze, R. (2016). A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 25(4), 318-335. doi:10.1080/09658416.2016.1235580
23. Rose, H., & Galloway, N. (2019). Global Englishes for language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24. Saito, H., & Ebsworth, M. E. (2004). Seeing English language teaching and learning through the eyes of Japanese EFL and ESL students. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 111-¬124. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02178.x
25. Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
26. Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-324). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
27. Seidlhofer (Eds), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press.
28. Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00480.x
29. Song, M.-J., & Suh, B.-R. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36, 295-312. doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.09.006
30. Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164. doi:10.3138/cmlr.50.1.158
31. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125-144). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
32. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391. doi:10.1093/applin/16.3.371
33. Tarone, E., & Liu, G. (1995) Situational context, variation, and second language acquisition theory. In H. G. Widdowson, (Ed.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 107-124). Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press.
34. Trebits, A. (2014). Sources of individual differences in L2 narrative production: The contribution of input, processing, and output anxiety. Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 155-174. doi:10.1093/applin/amu006
35. VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (Eds.) (2015). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
36. Vigil, N., & Oller, J. W. (1976). Rule fossilization. Language Learning, 26, 281-295. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00278.x
37. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38. Yang, P. (2016). An integrated mode study on college English teaching of listening and speaking: Based on output-driven, input-enabled hypothesis. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(6), 1236-1240. doi:10.17507/tpls.0606.13
39. Zaccaron, R. (2018). Again and again: An immediate repetition oral task viewed in light of Swain’s output hypothesis. Uberlândia, 12(3), 401-1427. doi:10.14393/DL35-v12n3a2018-2