CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,407EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLinguistics and Language Analysis

Problems in Output and the Cognitive Processes They Generate: A Step Towards Second Language Learning

SWAIN, M., LAPKIN, S.·1995·Applied Linguistics
DOI 10.1093/applin/16.3.371
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper argues, and provides data to support the argument, that in producing an L2, learners will on occasion become aware of (i e notice) a linguistic problem Noticing a problem can ‘push’ learners to modify their output In doing so, learners may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic processing mode than might occur in comprehension Thus, output sets ‘noticing’ in train, triggering mental processes that lead to modified output What goes on between the original output and its reprocessed form, it is suggested, is part of the process of second language learning

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/applin/16.3.371

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Output serves a metalinguistic function, enabling learners to control and internalize linguistic knowledge.

    “Third, Swain asserts that output serves a metalinguistic function, 'enabling [learners] to control and internalize linguistic knowledge' (Swain 1995: 126).”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Swain 1995

  • Output allows learners to test their linguistic hypotheses and possibly receive feedback on these hypotheses.

    “Second, Swain proposes that output allows learners to test their linguistic hypotheses and possibly receive feedback on these hypotheses (i.e. the hypothesis-testing function).”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Swain 1995

  • The interactionist approach draws strongly on Swain's Comprehensible Output Hypothesis, which claims that output is not merely a representation of L2 development but is a causal factor for L2 development in several ways.

    “the interactionist approach draws strongly on Swain's (1985Swain's ( , 1995Swain's ( , 2005) ) Comprehensible Output Hypothesis, which claims that output is not merely a representation of L2 development but is a causal factor for L2 development in several ways.”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Swain 1995

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
SWAIN, M., & LAPKIN, S.
Venue
Applied Linguistics
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1995-09-01
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
371-391
ISSN
  • 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-450X
DOI
10.1093/applin/16.3.371
OpenAlex
W2080503468
Cited by
1,407
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 85 · 2019: 71 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 68 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 70 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 71 · 2012: 94
FWCI
101.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
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 › Linguistics and Language Analysis
Keywords
noticing, second language acquisition, syntactic processing, cognitive processes, second language production, second language comprehension

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