Collocation learning and the ‘Pushed Output’ hypothesis

There is a broad agreement among most language learning researchers that output is necessary to increase linguistic competence i.e. L2 learners must practise producing the language if they are to learn to use their interlanguage system routinely and confidently (Mitchell & Myles, 2004). Based on her observational data of the French immersion program in Canada, Swain (1985) argued that part of the learners’ inability to exhibit a full mastery of French, especially in speaking and writing skills, was that they had had little opportunity to engage in producing ‘comprehensible output’ through negotiation of meaning. According to Swain (1985), negotiating meaning involves the notion of being ‘pushed’ toward not only a mere conveyance of a message, but rather a precise, coherent, and appropriate delivery of that message. She tentatively used the term ‘output’ to include speaking, writing, collaborative dialogue and/ or verbalizing tasks, which serve the language learning process through different functions (Swain 2000). Other than the

84

typical ‘practice’ function, the ‘pushed output’ hypothesis proposed by Swain advocates three functions for learner output. The first one is the noticing/ triggering function. The claim behind this function is that learners might notice that they do not know how to write or say precisely what they wish to convey. This awareness about their linguistic gap would trigger cognitive processes which push learners to generate new linguistic knowledge or to consolidate their current existing knowledge. The second function is hypothesis testing, which serves the claim that “output may sometimes be, from the learners’ perspective, a “trial run” reflecting their hypothesis of how to say (or write) their intent” (Swain, 2005, pp. 476). The third role of the output is the metalinguistic/ reflective function. Using language produced by the self or by others to reflect on language mediates second language learning. Swain and Lapkin (1995) confirm that the cognitive processes (identified in their experiment) represent processes similar to those hypothesised by other theorists and researchers which involve extending L1 knowledge to L2 contexts, extending L2 knowledge to new target-language contexts, and formulating and testing hypotheses about linguistic forms and functions.

In relation to vocabulary acquisition and lexical competence, a number of studies have given the ‘pushed output’ qualified support (e.g. de la Fuente, 2002; He and Ellis, 1999). Additionally, there is evidence from empirical research that output tasks were more effective when compared to input tasks or activity-based tasks for the purpose of learning new words (Browne, 2002; Laufer & Girsai, 2008a, 2008b). According to Laufer and Girsai (ibid), translation into L2 is a manifestation of pushed output. Using the pushed output hypothesis in this research means that (1) the subjects were required to actively produce language in order to translate (2) a translation was only considered good if they used, rather than avoided problematic words or structures (i.e. collocations), like in the case of free production (3) Upon encountering a gap in their lexical knowledge, subjects were required to engage in a thinking process in which they extend their L1 knowledge to L2 context, extend their L2 knowledge to new target language contexts (4) they are also expected to engage in restructuring, testing their new knowledge and reflecting on their previous knowledge about the target non-congruent collocations with the help of the bilingual corpus-data. Hence, this researcher would hypothesise that the corpus-assisted CAT might be an effective pushed output task for learning the non-congruent collocations.

85

3.5.4 Summary

As suggested earlier, collocation learning with a corpus-assisted contrastive-analysis and translation approach does not fit neatly into a single theoretical framework of SLA. This researcher argued that it could be accounted for by a synthesis of hypotheses in SLA. Informed by the connectionist model to SLA, the ‘noticing’ hypothesis provides a sound basis for the pedagogical use of corpora and concordance-based tasks as a prelude to collocation learning. The connectionist model perceives word knowledge as one of the neural networks with complex clusters of connections. The connections within the mind are strengthened by repeated exposure to exemplars. This could be achieved by being exposed to a wealth of real language in corpora. The contrast-dependent perceptual salience provided by the bilingual corpus-data could also account for the strengthened mental connections and representations of the target collocations. The ‘involvement load’ and the ‘pushed output’ hypotheses are viewed by the current researcher as being interdisciplinary with the ‘noticing’ hypothesis. However, more grounded in information processing approaches to SLA, the two hypotheses provide theoretical underpinnings for this cross-linguistic form-focused approach, and shed light on the autonomous processes in which the learner cognitively manipulates translation tasks and corpus- data in working memory which may result in learning.

3.6 Research hypotheses

Based on the literature and the theoretical underpinnings reviewed in the preceding sections the following hypotheses in favour of the proposed corpus-assisted contrastive analysis and translation approach were formulated.

H1. The corpus-assisted CAT condition will lead to the learning of a significantly larger number (if any) of adj. /noun collocations than the non-corpus-assisted CAT condition.

d) The corpus-assisted CAT condition will lead to the passive recall of a significantly larger number (if any) of adj. /noun collocations than non-corpus assisted CAT condition.

e) The corpus-assisted CAT condition will lead to the active recall of a significantly larger number (if any) of adj. /noun collocations than the non-corpus assisted CAT condition.

f) The differences between the conditions in active and passive recall (if any) will be retained in a delayed post-test.

86

H2. The corpus-assisted CAT condition will lead to the learning of a significantly larger number (if any) of adj. /noun collocations than the corpus-assisted non- CAT condition.

d) The contrastive analysis and translation conditions (both) will lead to the passive recall of a significantly larger number (if any) of adj. /noun collocations than the non-contrastive and translation tasks.

e) The corpus-assisted CAT condition will lead to the active recall of a significantly larger number (if any) of adj. /noun collocations than the corpus-assisted non- CAT condition.

f) The differences between the conditions in active and passive recall (if any) will be retained in a delayed post-test.

87