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

By Shinichi Izumi. 2003

246 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/78c40796845ffd255d7422c7352bcb69be0a6955

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (2018, background): “Hence, there is no rigid separation between lexis and grammar in this approach to language structures, an issue we will return to later.”
IDENTIFYING THE IMPACT OF NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNERS' RESPONSES ON ESL QUESTION DEVELOPMENT (2005, background): “…modify their output, they either generate a new message or reprocess their original message, both of which trigger additional grammatical encoding ~Izumi, 2003!+ When learners produce a particular structure, they may repeatedly use that same structure in subsequent utterances, a phenomenon…”
Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research (2007, background): “As pointed out by Izumi (2003), the resourceful nature of the comprehension process allows L2 listeners to understand yet-to-be acquired structures.”
EFFECTS OF FORM-FOCUSED PRACTICE AND FEEDBACK ON CHINESE EFL LEARNERS’ ACQUISITION OF REGULAR AND IRREGULAR PAST TENSE FORMS (2010, background): “Modifi ed output is considered to contribute to L2 development, as suggested by Levelt’s ( 1989 ) speech production model, because it allows learners to either generate new output or reprocess their original output, both of which trigger additional grammatical encoding (Izumi, 2003 ).”
PEER INTERACTION AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR ACCURACY AND FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2012, unknown): “Although Levelt’s studies have been adopted by some SLA researchers to discuss focus on form (e.g., Doughty, 2001 ) or the output hypothesis (e.g., Izumi, 2003 ; see also de Bot, 1992 , who adapted the model for L2 speech), the current study focuses on the monitor in terms of its functionality for…”
Teacher‐ and Learner‐Led Discourse in Task‐Based Grammar Instruction: Providing Procedural Assistance for L2 Morphosyntactic Development (2008, background): “Meanwhile, where output is concerned, current models of speech production have ascribed an important role to preverbal message “monitoring” as an accompaniment to lexical and grammatical encoding, such that the potential exists for explicit knowledge of L2 form-meaning relationships to affect the co”
Learners’ Use of Metalanguage in Collaborative Form-focused L2 Output Tasks (2005, background): “Swain (1995, 1998) cites several studies in support of her output hypothesis, which ‘claims that output can, under certain conditions, promote language acquisition by allowing learners to try out and stretch their IL capabilities’ (Izumi, 2003: 169).”
Task-Based Language Learning (2011, background): “…should affect L2 speech performance, as have others who have been more generally concerned with identifying the mechanisms involved in producing L2 speech and responding to negative feedback on it (e.g., Bygate, 1999; Doughty, 2001; Izumi, 2003; Kormos, 2006, 2011; see also de Bot, 1996, 1998).”