These questions refer to Swain’s Comprehensible Output theory and Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis.
Swain’s (1997) comprehensible output theory posits learning partly happens when learners encounter knowledge gaps. Learners become aware of the gaps and modify output accordingly.
Through, Schmidt’s (1990) Noticing Hypothesis, students learn grammatical features once noticing them. The first step involves learners becoming aware of knowledge gaps in grammar and afterward strategizing plans for overcoming those gaps.
Here are my questions.
First, is there any literature that attempts to identify a minimum amount of content for comprehensible input or noticing to occur? I’m assuming the more is better and the exact number depends on student characteristics. That being said, is there any literature on the subject? I would like to reference something tangible.
Second, Swain seems to hedge her definition of the comprehensible output theory by providing example dialogues of Person B telling Person A what is wrong with A's grammar (wording, pragmatics) explicitly. For example:
A: How you doing?
B: No, not “how you doing”? You want to say, How are you doing?
A: Thanks
To reference Swain’s CO theory, should we refer explicitly to interactions containing people talking about error corrections?
I would like to think the theory states that language acquisition occurs regardless of one person correcting another person’s language during a conversation.
I am thinking about using the term “modified CO theory” but not if I don't have to.
I think both of these hypothesis by Swain and Schmidt are highly correlated with the nature of Call performance.
In Swain's CO theory, different types of negative feedback (e.g., error correction) are some of the ways that can lead learners to test their hypotheses. Negative evidence does not have to come about as a result of direct interaction. It can also happen when learners themselves realise that they failed to successfully communicate a message. Besides, the L2 output that learners act upon for metalinguistic reflection does not necessarily have to be their own output. They can also take into account what others have produced and test their hypotheses against these outputs. Quinn (2018) offers a nice overview of the Comprehensible Output Hypothesis, which you may find useful to answer some of your questions:
Quinn, Paul Greogry. 2018. Comprehensible output. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. Wiley.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing