Cited by 238EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Comprehension and Production Processes in Second Language Learning: In Search of the Psycholinguistic Rationale of the Output Hypothesis

Izumi, S.·2003·Applied Linguistics

Abstract

The output hypothesis claims that production makes the learner move from ‘semantic processing’ prevalent in comprehension to more ‘syntactic processing’ that is necessary for second language development. The purpose of this article is to illuminate the psycholinguistic mechanisms that underlie this claim by reviewing previous literature in language acquisition and cognitive psychology on the comprehension and production processes in language use and language learning. In speech comprehension, the interactive and compensatory nature of the human comprehension system can both promote comprehension and hinder language development for second language learners, unless the learners are somehow pushed to attend to form–meaning connections during input processing. In elucidating the mechanisms by which output promotes SLA, it is argued, by drawing on Levelt's (1989, 1992, 1993) speech production model, that the processes of grammatical encoding during production and monitoring to check the matching of the communicative intention and the output enable language learners to assess the possibilities and limitations of their interlanguage capability. This may, under certain conditions, serve as an internal priming device for consciousness raising for the learners, which in turn creates an optimal condition for language learning to take place. It is argued that understanding of the constraints and potentials for learning created by input and output processing is crucial for devising pedagogical tasks that effectively promote interlanguage development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/applin/24.2.168

Cites

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?

  • The present analysis supports the comprehensible output hypothesis proposal that comprehensible output contributes to L2 acquisition, in that as learners try to produce comprehensible output, various means of construction described in Section 4 potentially come into play in the development of accuracy and fluency.

    “The present analysis supports such proposals in that, as learners try to produce comprehensible output, the various means of construction described in Section 4 potentially come into play in the development of accuracy and fluency ~De Bot, 1996;Izumi, 2003!+”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Izumi, S.
Corresponding author
Izumi, S.
Venue
Applied Linguistics
Published
2003-06-01
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
168-196
ISSN
  • 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-450X
OpenAlex
W2040527302
Cited by
238
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 24
FWCI
40.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Applied Linguistics (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
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
output hypothesis, second language acquisition, speech understanding, speech production, grammatical encoding, monitoring, interlanguage development, consciousness raising, semantic processing, syntactic processing, form-meaning connections, teaching tasks

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