The urge for studying English as the second or third language is prescribed today with a particular mandatory character. Being Lingua Franca English comprises today the huge scope of international relationships. Swain’s hypothesis demonstrates the argumentation of output significance for mastering foreign language. DeKeyser (2007) admits the significance of Swain’s Output Hypothesis in acquisition of theoretical and practical skills while learning languages. The study of this researcher encompasses the whole outlook on the studying languages in its multidimensional approach. The psychological background for languages is straightforwardly concerned with the work of memory. DeKeyser (2007) makes it easy to understand when expanding the role of memory into three psycholinguistic models, namely: conceptualizing, formulating, and articulating. Thus, the output can be outlined with these significant features in studying languages.
Barron (2003) searches for the reciprocal approach of Swain’s output hypothesis in comparison to Long’s interaction hypothesis, so that to outline the role of both output and input in learning languages. Here the acquisition of knowledge is reckoned with the psychological processes of cognitive perception. Swain’s model is not limited. Of course, it can be interrelated with other approaches toward effective studying of languages. Here the aim of the hypothesis is similar to other models, which is mastership of a definite language.
The survey made by Ellis (2003) makes it possible to analyze Swain’s hypothesis in its assertion that production in studying languages leads to communication and acquisition of knowledge afterwards with the particular researches of Krashen’s and Skehan’s approaches to the issue. In this respect the reliability of Swain’s theoretical ground is argued with the positive estimation of diverse direction in his hypothesis. In other words, this study critically discusses the functional frame of the hypothesis made by Swain. Particular findings showed that there is a point to correlate Swain’s Output Hypothesis with suggestions having being prescribed in addition afterwards.
Kormos (2006) anticipates the hypothesis of Swain from different sides and gives grounds for thinking that not only output can make an impulse for acquisition of knowledge and units of language. The author argues the hypothesis on the base of different reasoning, because “monitoring involves both attention and conscious processing as well as producing output” (Kormos, 2006, p. 134). However, the point on expressly significant role of output in the process of language learning can be demonstrated in absolutely practical domain.
Bassi (1995) provides in her article the process of practical implementation of Swain’s approach to output. In the research the engagement of personnel in various firms and companies into workplace education presupposes the dominant position of the result or attempts of employees to yield their skills. In fact, this method showed that the credibility as well as reliability of the functional prerequisites of the Output Hypothesis by Swain can be used for efficient acquisition of language as it is. However, the feature of “quality of output” is distinctively emphasized (Bassi, 1995, p. 39).
The analysis of Swain’s theory in studying languages provides a scope of interesting and catchy assumptions. Hence, Toyoda & Harrison (2002) consider that Swain’s method is rather appropriate in studying Japanese, in particular. It is so due to the illumination of main priorities which the Output Hypothesis has “at its disposal”. L2 learning becomes more predicted and planned when making glimpses at the perspectives of output production in language. “Comprehensible input and modified output”, nevertheless, should be pointed out with a mere attention on their destination in the discourse (Toyoda & Harrison, 2002, p. 82).
Input-Interaction-Output (IIO) Model promotes a better understanding of why Swain lays more emphasis on the problem of output process for acquisition of practical knowledge. Thereupon, Hite & Evans (2006) argue the reasonable points of the Output Hypothesis in terms of the primordial significance of the input process and SLA model as well: “In the intake stage, the learner must process comprehended input and match it against existing knowledge and then integrate the input, either storing it for future reference or using it for immediate production—output” (89). This idea relates to the direct implementation of triggering function in the whole survey on the Swain’s hypothesis.
Jessner (2006) underlines the ultimate significance of Swain’s hypothesis owing to the fact that when producing language a learner becomes aware of his deficits. In this case the metalinguistic function is apparent in its theoretical overview. Furthermore, the recognition of current stage in language learning will logical make a stimulus for more frequent tries of learners in terms of language skills improvements.
The cognitive perspective of Swain’s explanation of the Output Hypothesis can be determined and further estimated on the concept of individual mind. Here Dalton-Puffer (2007) drives the theoretical approach to the idea of pre-existent and hard-wired character of the cognitive processes in the individual mind. Thus, functional fullness of Swain’s hypothesis can be evaluated as significant for individual process of learning (Basturkmen, 2006).
Reference
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Stamford, CT: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bassi, L. J. (1995). ‘Upgrading the U.S. Workplace: Do Reorganization, Education Help?’. Monthly Labor Review, 118(5), 37-41.
Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. London: Routledge.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Stamford, CT: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hite, C. E., & Evans, L. S. (2006). ‘Mainstream First-Grade Teachers’ Understanding of Strategies for Accommodating the Needs of English Language Learners’. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2), 89.
Jessner U. (2006). Linguistic awareness in multilinguals: English as a third language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). ‘Categorization of Text Chat Communication between Learners and Native Speakers of Japanese’. Language, Learning & Technology, 6(1), 82.