“输出假设”在英语词汇习得中的验证研究
摘要
二十世纪八十年代,Krashen提出可理解输入假设。受Krashen输入理论的影响,在外语教学中长时间存在着一种重输入轻输出的现象。加拿大著名的语言学家Merrill Swain在1985年提出了输出假设。她通过长达七年浸入式学习的调查发现,语言输入并不是外语学习的唯一成功因素,语言输出对外语学习同样关键和重要,不少研究结果都表明了输出是能够促进二语习得的,但前人研究中把输出作为一种提高词汇习得手段的研究则甚少。
本文对输出假设在英语词汇习得中的作用从三方面进行验证研究:1)仅有语言输入活动和既有语言输出又有输入活动哪一项对词汇习得影响大?2)在哪些方面,输出会影响词汇习得?3)通过什么样的学习条件能将输出效果最大化?本研究通过实验研究的方法,对来自三个平行班的八十名大学女生实施语言教学实验,将其分为控制组和输出组。对控制组十六名受试者实施语言输入实验研究;另外对输出组六十四名受试者进行的语言输出与输入教学实验研究中,针对第二和第三个问题,实验通过词汇教学方式和词汇教学任务顺序这两种不同教学手段对输出组进行干预,将输出组根据不同的词汇教学方式分为互动组和非互动组;根据不同的词汇教学任务顺序分为输出任务优先输入组和输入任务优先输出组。实验中通过一系列不同词汇教学任务帮助受试者来习得词汇,随后进行词汇识别测试,旨在探求输出对词汇习得的积极影响,从而达到进一步研究输出在外语教学中作用的目的。
实验数据经SPSS软件分析,结果表明:第一,语言输出活动实验组的词汇习得水平高于仅有语言输入活动的对照组;第二,输出在注意,检索和保留三方面产生了积极的影响;第三,不同词汇呈现方式(互动组和非互动组比较)中,互动模式下的输出组目标词汇习得水平明显高于其他组的水平;不同学习顺序(输出任务优先输入组和输入任务优先输出组相比较)中,成绩变化不显著,组间差异不大。实验结果证明了输出对词汇习得有重要的作用,并在互动模式下的输出模式能有效地帮助学生习得词汇,从而提高英语词汇习得能力。
由于时间和实验条件的原因,本研究受到一定的限制,如样本相对较小,实验时间相对较短,测试形式相对单一等等。但作者认为本研究为英语词汇教学开拓了新的视野,具有一定的理论和实践意义。
In the 1980s,Krashen proposed Input Hypothesis.Attracted by Input Hypothesis,the role and importance of output is neglected in foreign language teaching.Output Hypothesis was proposed by the Canadian linguist Merrill Swain in 1985,her Output Hypothesis is regarded as the most important and influential one.In her research based on learning L2 in immersion classes,Swain concluded that comprehensible input is not the sole factor for successful L2 learning,arguing that output serves an indispensable learning purpose.However,few experimental studies testify the effect of output on vocabulary acquisition.
This study aims to testify the Output Hypothesis on English vocabulary in terms of a number of questions 1) which affects vocabulary acquisition more effectively,input only instruction or output plus input instruction? 2) Under what special conditions may output affect vocabulary development? 3) What learning conditions could be ideal for maximizing those functions of output? By means of experimental research design,eighty female students in the college from three parallel participated in the study.First,all the students in three classes were randomly assigned to either 1) the control group or 2) the experimental groups.The control group with sixteen students received vocabulary treatments involving only input activities,while the experimental group with sixty-four students,receiving vocabulary treatments involving output as well as input.To answer the second and the third question,two different instructions interfered in the experimental group which was randomly assigned to four subgroups in terms of two variables:1) the task performance mode:non-interaction and interaction group.2) the task sequence:output first presentation task order group and input first presentation task order group.Subjects acquired vocabulary through a series of vocabulary instruction task and different task performance mode.Then,posttests were given to test vocabulary knowledge.It aims to have a good understanding of the role output in foreign language teaching by exploring positive effect of output on vocabulary acquisition.
The results of SPSS software analysis of vocabulary test indicated learners exposed to the output plus input vocabulary instruction will gain higher levels vocabulary knowledge than learners exposed to input only vocabulary instruction.Then,it also indicated that subjects engaged in the task presented that output has a positive effect in the aspects of noticing, retrieve and retention.The results of different task performance mode indicated the output task in the interactive mode achieved significantly higher levels of target vocabulary acquisition than those exposed to the other conditions.The test result of different task sequences did not show significant group differences.The findings of this study suggest the importance of output in vocabulary acquisition.Furthermore,in the interactive mode output can help learners acquire vocabulary.
Due to the time length and confines of experimental conditions,this study has some limitations,such as,the sample size is relative small,and the experimental time is relatively short,and so on.Nevertheless,the author thinks that this study is of certain theoretical and practical significance for it presents the enlightenment for the teaching of English vocabulary in China.
本文对输出假设在英语词汇习得中的作用从三方面进行验证研究:1)仅有语言输入活动和既有语言输出又有输入活动哪一项对词汇习得影响大?2)在哪些方面,输出会影响词汇习得?3)通过什么样的学习条件能将输出效果最大化?本研究通过实验研究的方法,对来自三个平行班的八十名大学女生实施语言教学实验,将其分为控制组和输出组。对控制组十六名受试者实施语言输入实验研究;另外对输出组六十四名受试者进行的语言输出与输入教学实验研究中,针对第二和第三个问题,实验通过词汇教学方式和词汇教学任务顺序这两种不同教学手段对输出组进行干预,将输出组根据不同的词汇教学方式分为互动组和非互动组;根据不同的词汇教学任务顺序分为输出任务优先输入组和输入任务优先输出组。实验中通过一系列不同词汇教学任务帮助受试者来习得词汇,随后进行词汇识别测试,旨在探求输出对词汇习得的积极影响,从而达到进一步研究输出在外语教学中作用的目的。
实验数据经SPSS软件分析,结果表明:第一,语言输出活动实验组的词汇习得水平高于仅有语言输入活动的对照组;第二,输出在注意,检索和保留三方面产生了积极的影响;第三,不同词汇呈现方式(互动组和非互动组比较)中,互动模式下的输出组目标词汇习得水平明显高于其他组的水平;不同学习顺序(输出任务优先输入组和输入任务优先输出组相比较)中,成绩变化不显著,组间差异不大。实验结果证明了输出对词汇习得有重要的作用,并在互动模式下的输出模式能有效地帮助学生习得词汇,从而提高英语词汇习得能力。
由于时间和实验条件的原因,本研究受到一定的限制,如样本相对较小,实验时间相对较短,测试形式相对单一等等。但作者认为本研究为英语词汇教学开拓了新的视野,具有一定的理论和实践意义。
In the 1980s,Krashen proposed Input Hypothesis.Attracted by Input Hypothesis,the role and importance of output is neglected in foreign language teaching.Output Hypothesis was proposed by the Canadian linguist Merrill Swain in 1985,her Output Hypothesis is regarded as the most important and influential one.In her research based on learning L2 in immersion classes,Swain concluded that comprehensible input is not the sole factor for successful L2 learning,arguing that output serves an indispensable learning purpose.However,few experimental studies testify the effect of output on vocabulary acquisition.
This study aims to testify the Output Hypothesis on English vocabulary in terms of a number of questions 1) which affects vocabulary acquisition more effectively,input only instruction or output plus input instruction? 2) Under what special conditions may output affect vocabulary development? 3) What learning conditions could be ideal for maximizing those functions of output? By means of experimental research design,eighty female students in the college from three parallel participated in the study.First,all the students in three classes were randomly assigned to either 1) the control group or 2) the experimental groups.The control group with sixteen students received vocabulary treatments involving only input activities,while the experimental group with sixty-four students,receiving vocabulary treatments involving output as well as input.To answer the second and the third question,two different instructions interfered in the experimental group which was randomly assigned to four subgroups in terms of two variables:1) the task performance mode:non-interaction and interaction group.2) the task sequence:output first presentation task order group and input first presentation task order group.Subjects acquired vocabulary through a series of vocabulary instruction task and different task performance mode.Then,posttests were given to test vocabulary knowledge.It aims to have a good understanding of the role output in foreign language teaching by exploring positive effect of output on vocabulary acquisition.
The results of SPSS software analysis of vocabulary test indicated learners exposed to the output plus input vocabulary instruction will gain higher levels vocabulary knowledge than learners exposed to input only vocabulary instruction.Then,it also indicated that subjects engaged in the task presented that output has a positive effect in the aspects of noticing, retrieve and retention.The results of different task performance mode indicated the output task in the interactive mode achieved significantly higher levels of target vocabulary acquisition than those exposed to the other conditions.The test result of different task sequences did not show significant group differences.The findings of this study suggest the importance of output in vocabulary acquisition.Furthermore,in the interactive mode output can help learners acquire vocabulary.
Due to the time length and confines of experimental conditions,this study has some limitations,such as,the sample size is relative small,and the experimental time is relatively short,and so on.Nevertheless,the author thinks that this study is of certain theoretical and practical significance for it presents the enlightenment for the teaching of English vocabulary in China.
引文
Anderson, J. 1996.The Architecture of Cognition [M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (second edition) [M]. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Baddeley, A. 1990. Human Memory: Theory and Practice[M]. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
de Bot, K. 1997. The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis[J]. Language Learning, 46, 529-55.
DeKeyser, R. Anderson, J. \996.The Architecture of Cognition[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Baddeley, A. 1990. Human Memory: Theory and Practice[M]. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
de Bot, K. 1997. The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis [J]. Language Learning, 46, 529-55.
DeKeyser, R. 1997. Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195-221.
Doughty, C. & J.Williams. 1998. (Eds.), Focus on form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 114-138.
Doughty, C. & J.Williams. 1998. Pedagogical choices in focus on form[A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition[C]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 197-261.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition[M]. Oxford: Oxford Press.
Ellis, R. 1999. Theoretical perspective on interaction and language learaing[A]. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a Second Language Through Interaction[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3-31.
Hulstijn, J. & B. Laufer. 2001. Some empirical evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition[J]. Language Learning, 51, 539-558.
Izumi, S. & M. Bigelow. 2000. Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition?[J]. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239-278.
Izumi, S., M. Bigelow., M. Fujiwara. & S. Fearnow. 1999. Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421-452.
Kern, R. 1995. Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production[J]. Modern Language Learning, 79, 457-476.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition [M].Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. 1984. Immersion: Why it works and what it has taught us [J]. Language and Society 12:61 -64.
Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications[M]. London: Longman.
Krashen, S. 1987. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition[M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Laufer, B. 1998. The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same or different?[J]. Applied Linguistics, 19, 255-271.
Laufer, B. & T. Paribakht. 1998. The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context[J]. Language Learning, 48, 365- 391.
Lee, S. 2003. ESL learners' vocabulary use in writing and the effects of explicit vocabulary instruction[J]. System, 31, 537-561.
Long, M. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition[A]. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition[C] (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 413-468.
Long, M., S. Inagaki. & L. Ortega. 1998. The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.
McDonough, K. 2001. Exploring the Relationship Between Modified Output and L2 Learning[D]. Ph.D dissertation. Georgetown University, Washington D.C.
McLaughlin, B. 1990. Restructuring[J]. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113-128.
McLaughlin, B. & R. Heredia. 1996. Information processing approached to research on second language acquisition and use[A]. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition[C] San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 213-225.
Pica, T. 1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? [J] Language Learning, 44, 493-527.
Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development[A].In S.Gass and C.Madden(Eds.),Input in Second Language Acquisition[C]MA:Newbury House Publishers,Rowley,235-253.
Swain,M.1995.Three functions of output in second language learning[A].In G.Cook & B.Seidlhofer(Eds.),Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics:Studies in Honor of H.G.Widdowson[C]Oxford:Oxford University Press,125-144.
Swain,M.1998.Focus on form through conscious reflection[A].In C.Doughty & J.Williams(Eds.),Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition[C].New York:Cambridge University Press,64-81.
Swain,M.& S.Lapkin.1995.Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate:A step towards second language learning[J].Applied Linguistics,16,371-391.
Van den Branden,K.1997.Effects of negotiation on language learners'output.Language Learning[J],47,589-636.
Wesche,M.& T.Paribakht.1996.Assessing second language vocabulary[J].Canadian Modem Language Review,53,13-41.
方玲玲,2004,“写长法”在大学英语教学中的应用研究[J],《外语界》第3期。
冯纪元、黄姣,2004,语言输出活动对语言形式习得的影响[J],《现代外语》,第2期。
郭红、戚德山,2009,输入与输出假说的实证研究[J],《外语学刊》,第1期。
顾琦一,输出假说剖析[J],《外语学刊》第2期。
李红,2002,可理解输出假设的认知基础[J],《外语与外语教学》第2期10-12。
李宏德,2007,句子层面的输出对二语词汇习得影响的实证研究[D],重庆:重庆大学。
凌文辁、方俐洛,2000,英汉心理学词典[M]。北京:机械工业出版社。
卢仁顺,2002,“输出假设”研究对我国英语教学的启示[J],《外语与外语教学》第4期。
蒙梅,2008,语言输出中注意功能的实证研究[D]。南宁:广西大学。
束定芳、庄智象,1996,《现代外语教学-理论实践与方法》。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
宋兆娟,2005,输出对语言形式习得的促进作用[D]。 曲阜:曲阜师范大学。
王初明,2001,正确认识外语学习过程是提高外语教学质量的关键[J],《外语与外语教学》第10期。
王初明,2002,外语“写长法”的教学理念[A].《外国语言学及应用语言学研究》[C]。北京:中央编译出版社。
王奇民,2003,大学英语教学中的输入与输出探究--中西教学模式比较及其对大学英语教学的启示[J],《外语教学》第3期。
文虹,2007,输出性任务对二语词汇习得影响的实证研究[D]。 广州:广东外贸大学。
杨淑梅,2003,调动学生自主性是加快输入到输出过程的关键[J],《外语教学》第2期。
钟月嫦,2008,听力输入过程性评估对口语输出影响的实证研究[D]。南宁:广西大学。
赵平,2000,Swain的输出假设对大学英语写作的指导意义[J].《山 东外语教学》第3期。
赵培,2004,大学英语教学中“输入”与“输出”角色的重新评估[J],《山东外语教学》第5期。
赵小沛,2003,Swain的输出假设及其对我国外语教学的启示[J],《安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》第4期。
周超英,2006,口语输出中注意功能的实证研究[D]。贵阳:贵州大学。
Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (second edition) [M]. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Baddeley, A. 1990. Human Memory: Theory and Practice[M]. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
de Bot, K. 1997. The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis[J]. Language Learning, 46, 529-55.
DeKeyser, R. Anderson, J. \996.The Architecture of Cognition[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Baddeley, A. 1990. Human Memory: Theory and Practice[M]. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
de Bot, K. 1997. The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis [J]. Language Learning, 46, 529-55.
DeKeyser, R. 1997. Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195-221.
Doughty, C. & J.Williams. 1998. (Eds.), Focus on form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 114-138.
Doughty, C. & J.Williams. 1998. Pedagogical choices in focus on form[A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition[C]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 197-261.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition[M]. Oxford: Oxford Press.
Ellis, R. 1999. Theoretical perspective on interaction and language learaing[A]. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a Second Language Through Interaction[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3-31.
Hulstijn, J. & B. Laufer. 2001. Some empirical evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition[J]. Language Learning, 51, 539-558.
Izumi, S. & M. Bigelow. 2000. Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition?[J]. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239-278.
Izumi, S., M. Bigelow., M. Fujiwara. & S. Fearnow. 1999. Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421-452.
Kern, R. 1995. Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production[J]. Modern Language Learning, 79, 457-476.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition [M].Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. 1984. Immersion: Why it works and what it has taught us [J]. Language and Society 12:61 -64.
Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications[M]. London: Longman.
Krashen, S. 1987. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition[M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Laufer, B. 1998. The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same or different?[J]. Applied Linguistics, 19, 255-271.
Laufer, B. & T. Paribakht. 1998. The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context[J]. Language Learning, 48, 365- 391.
Lee, S. 2003. ESL learners' vocabulary use in writing and the effects of explicit vocabulary instruction[J]. System, 31, 537-561.
Long, M. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition[A]. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition[C] (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 413-468.
Long, M., S. Inagaki. & L. Ortega. 1998. The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.
McDonough, K. 2001. Exploring the Relationship Between Modified Output and L2 Learning[D]. Ph.D dissertation. Georgetown University, Washington D.C.
McLaughlin, B. 1990. Restructuring[J]. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113-128.
McLaughlin, B. & R. Heredia. 1996. Information processing approached to research on second language acquisition and use[A]. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition[C] San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 213-225.
Pica, T. 1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? [J] Language Learning, 44, 493-527.
Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development[A].In S.Gass and C.Madden(Eds.),Input in Second Language Acquisition[C]MA:Newbury House Publishers,Rowley,235-253.
Swain,M.1995.Three functions of output in second language learning[A].In G.Cook & B.Seidlhofer(Eds.),Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics:Studies in Honor of H.G.Widdowson[C]Oxford:Oxford University Press,125-144.
Swain,M.1998.Focus on form through conscious reflection[A].In C.Doughty & J.Williams(Eds.),Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition[C].New York:Cambridge University Press,64-81.
Swain,M.& S.Lapkin.1995.Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate:A step towards second language learning[J].Applied Linguistics,16,371-391.
Van den Branden,K.1997.Effects of negotiation on language learners'output.Language Learning[J],47,589-636.
Wesche,M.& T.Paribakht.1996.Assessing second language vocabulary[J].Canadian Modem Language Review,53,13-41.
方玲玲,2004,“写长法”在大学英语教学中的应用研究[J],《外语界》第3期。
冯纪元、黄姣,2004,语言输出活动对语言形式习得的影响[J],《现代外语》,第2期。
郭红、戚德山,2009,输入与输出假说的实证研究[J],《外语学刊》,第1期。
顾琦一,输出假说剖析[J],《外语学刊》第2期。
李红,2002,可理解输出假设的认知基础[J],《外语与外语教学》第2期10-12。
李宏德,2007,句子层面的输出对二语词汇习得影响的实证研究[D],重庆:重庆大学。
凌文辁、方俐洛,2000,英汉心理学词典[M]。北京:机械工业出版社。
卢仁顺,2002,“输出假设”研究对我国英语教学的启示[J],《外语与外语教学》第4期。
蒙梅,2008,语言输出中注意功能的实证研究[D]。南宁:广西大学。
束定芳、庄智象,1996,《现代外语教学-理论实践与方法》。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
宋兆娟,2005,输出对语言形式习得的促进作用[D]。 曲阜:曲阜师范大学。
王初明,2001,正确认识外语学习过程是提高外语教学质量的关键[J],《外语与外语教学》第10期。
王初明,2002,外语“写长法”的教学理念[A].《外国语言学及应用语言学研究》[C]。北京:中央编译出版社。
王奇民,2003,大学英语教学中的输入与输出探究--中西教学模式比较及其对大学英语教学的启示[J],《外语教学》第3期。
文虹,2007,输出性任务对二语词汇习得影响的实证研究[D]。 广州:广东外贸大学。
杨淑梅,2003,调动学生自主性是加快输入到输出过程的关键[J],《外语教学》第2期。
钟月嫦,2008,听力输入过程性评估对口语输出影响的实证研究[D]。南宁:广西大学。
赵平,2000,Swain的输出假设对大学英语写作的指导意义[J].《山 东外语教学》第3期。
赵培,2004,大学英语教学中“输入”与“输出”角色的重新评估[J],《山东外语教学》第5期。
赵小沛,2003,Swain的输出假设及其对我国外语教学的启示[J],《安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》第4期。
周超英,2006,口语输出中注意功能的实证研究[D]。贵阳:贵州大学。