Cited by 194EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningSubtitles and Audiovisual Media

TESTING THE OUTPUT HYPOTHESIS: Effects of Output on Noticing and Second Language Acquisition

Izumi, Shinichi, Bigelow, Martha, Fujiwara, Miho, Fearnow, Sarah·1999·Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Abstract

This study addresses one of the functions of output proposed by Swain (1993, 1995, 1998). In particular, the activity of producing the target language may, under certain circumstances, prompt L2 learners to recognize some of their linguistic problems and bring to their attention something they need to discover about their L2. Two research questions were posed: (a) Does output promote noticing of linguistic form? and (b) Does output result in improved performance on the target form? In treatment phase 1, participants reconstructed a short passage after being exposed to it, followed by a second exposure to the same input material and a second reconstruction opportunity. In phase 2, participants wrote on given topics, followed by the presentation of a model written by a native speaker. Participants wrote a second time on the same topic. To test the noticing function of output, participants underlined parts of the sentences they thought were “particularly necessary” for subsequent (re)production. The control group was exposed to the same input materials but was not required to produce any output. Although phase 1 tasks resulted in noticing and immediate incorporation of the target form, the posttest performance failed to reveal their effects. In contrast, phase 2 tasks resulted in improvement on posttest 2. The results are discussed in terms of the efficacy of output in promoting noticing and learning and the conditions that may be required for output to be useful for SLA.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0272263199003034

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Izumi, Bigelow, Fujiwara, and Fearnow (1999) showed that opportunities for reconstruction in a pushed output task encouraged noticing of task-relevant aspects of linguistic form and enhanced rule learning in relation to those forms.

    “Izumi, Bigelow, Fujiwara, and Fearnow ~1999!showed that opportunities for reconstruction in a pushed output task encouraged the noticing of taskrelevant aspects of linguistic form and there was evidence of enhanced rulelearning in relation to those forms+”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S.
Affiliations
Georgetown University (US)
Venue
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Published
1999-09
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
421-452
ISSN
  • 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-1545
OpenAlex
W2077107076
Cited by
194
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 17
FWCI
29.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Studies in Second Language Acquisition (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Subtitles and Audiovisual Media
Keywords
noticing hypothesis, output hypothesis, second language acquisition, noticing, second language writing, native speaker model

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review