TESTING THE OUTPUT HYPOTHESIS: Effects of Output on Noticing and 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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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+”
From AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE (2005) · cites this paper as Izumi et al., 1999
Cites
The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 · Cited by 4,910 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This function of output is consistent with the claim made by Schmidt and Frota (1986) that “a second language learner will begin to acquire the targetlike form if and only if it is present in comprehended input and ‘noticed’ in the normal sense of the word, that is consciously” (p.”
ResultThe Output Hypothesis: Just Speaking and Writing Aren't Enough
Swain, M. (1993) · The Canadian Modern Language Review · doi:10.3138/cmlr.50.1.158 · Cited by 731 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Since the Output Hypothesis was first proposed, Swain (1993, 1995) has extended the scope of the hypothesis and identified the following three functions of output.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE
Ellis, N. C. (2005) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s027226310505014x · Cited by 893 · see citing works
Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x · Cited by 746 · see citing works
- Authors
- Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S.
- Affiliations
- Georgetown University (US)
- ORCID
- Bigelow, Martha
- Venue
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- 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