Noticing Function’s Influence On Using English Passive Voice In College English Writing

After Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, Canadian linguist Swain proposed “Comprehensible OutputHypothesis” in1985. She claimed that only depending on input is not enough for language learners toachieve a higher level. A successful second language learner not only needs to be exposed on a large ofcomprehensible input, but also produces a great deal of comprehensible output. In1990s, Schmidt(1990,1993,1994,1995) put forward the “Noticing Hypothesis”, which caused linguists’ concern. Itclaimed that the language acquisition would never occur unless language learners notice the gapbetween their interlanguage and the target language. On the basis of it, Swain further proposed threefunctions of output, namely, the noticing/triggering function, the hypothesis testing function andmeta-linguistic function. Noticing function of output can help second language learners to realize thegap between their own interlanguage and the target language and then facilitate them to acquisition ofthe target language form.Based on Swain’s Output Hypothesis and Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis, quantitative togetherwith qualitative research method was adopted in this research. The primary goal of this thesis is toexamine whether the two output tasks (guided-writing task and text-reconstruction task) can influencelearners’ using English passive voice in college English writing. And two research questions are raised:1. What are the similarities and differences in learners’ noticing the target grammatical form (Englishpassive voice) in the two output tasks;2. What are the similarities and differences in learners’ using thetarget grammatical form in the two output tasks.The subjects in this research are72sophomores in Information and Communication-engineering ofa university in Shanxi province. They were divided into two groups: experimental group (EG) andcontrol group (CG). Instructed to expose the same input content, EG (n=36) was required to completethe guided-writing task and text-reconstruction task, while CG (n=36) was allowed to finish thecomprehension task. The research instruments include pre-test, immediate post-test1, post-test2,interview and comprehension tasks. All the subjects took part in the three tasks mentioned above. SPSS18.0was employed to analyze the data collected in the experiment and tests. Two major findings of thisstudy are as follows:1.The data of underling in two phrases showed that EG paid more attention to the English passive voice in the subsequent input than CG did, which was caused by noticing function of output. Results ofinterview presented that more than half of EG showed that they had difficulty in using the targetlanguage form during their first output task and they also noticed the gap between their owninterlanguage and the target language.2.The result of the pre-test presented that EG and CG had a similar level in using English passivevoice. With every experimental phrase (guided-writing task and text-reconstruction task), the data ofoutput showed that EG’s performance of the English passive voice in their second output have greatlyimproved and made greater progress in using the target language form in the output production. Theresults of immediate post-test1and post-test2showed both two output tasks promoted EG and CG’sthe target language form using. Moreover, EG outperformed CG in using the target language form.