Input vs Output: Extremes or Two Sides of the Same Coin?

To answer this question it is important to shed light on how some scholars see these notions
within L2 acquisition theories, and whether their views are supportive of those Krashen or
Swain. The role of both input and output are generally recognized as important for second
language acquisition. Input is the language data or information the learner is exposed to and
has access to(Funbier,p.38).Ellis (1985) describes it as “the language that is addressed to the
learner either by a native speaker or by another L2 speaker”. According to Krashen (1985), L2
acquisition depends on comprehensible input. However many scholars such as Swain
1981,1991;Harley & hart,1997;Harley & Swain,1984 later challenge his hypothesis by showing
that comprehensible input alone is not sufficient for L2 acquisition. These scholars argue that
the process of comprehension is different from the process of production. The ability to
understand meaning conveyed by the texts or sentences is different from the ability to use
linguistic knowledge to express meaning.

They also add that only when input is negotiated learners produce output in interaction, that
the internalization of what is learned and experienced will become possible for the learners. In
this respect, Schwartz(1993) considers that input alone can not facilitate L2 learning. Input,
thus, can not function completely in SLA until it gets involved in interaction. The interactionist
theories explain that the acquisition of a language is the result of interaction between the
learner’s mental process and the linguistic environment (Arzamendi, Palacios&Ball, 2012). The
interactionists believe in interaction as the main reason of language acquisition, an interaction
that combines both input and output to function as one. During these interactions learners try
their efforts to produce comprehensible output, which will be sources of input for other
interlocutors(Allwright,1984).Tanaka and Yamasaki(1991) also state that though input
facilitates the acquisition of vocabulary in the target language it stays insufficient for the
acquisition of many syntactic structures. Here it is the output that should function to take care
of this flaw. Within the behaviourist theories, output is considered as an imitation of
something that has previously been assimilated (input).According to the behaviourists; a
language is acquired by the production of a series of habits which are enhanced by imitation.

They consider the output to be the natural outcome of input, a fact that makes us realize that
despite the fact that both the input and the output seem as extremes they ,indeed, complete
each other. To conclude, research in L2 acquisition is an on -going task. Since the 1970s more
researches have tried to explain the acquisition process, focusing more on the problematic
relationship between the input and output hypotheses. Such a relation has stirred so much
debate and generated many opposite views and this have, in fact, contributed greatly to the
understanding of how a language can be learned. Here one can suggest some ideas to
reconcile these ideas.

-Comprehensible output is always necessary before any output production, especially if the
learner is a young person who does not possess enough linguistic knowledge to reflect on
his /her own output .That is why it is always better not to force them to speak the target
language so as not to make them more anxious, a matter that will hinder their process of
learning as hinted by Swain that “forcing students to speak English will not improve their
ability to speak English”( Korean

Times,2009).

-The focus on either input or output may vary from one learning environment to another. If
the focus falls on syntax, the use of output strategies will be essential to foster reflection and
self-correction. But if the focus is on acquiring new vocabulary the use of input approach will
be eminent.

-If we delve into al language acquisition theories we will realize that most of them confirm my
argument in this essay that the ability to produce the language is the outcome of language
acquisition, as viewed by Krashen, but also its cause, as argued by swain.

[Link]

Bibliography

Allwright, R. (1984). The Importance of Interaction In Classroom Language Learning. Applied

Arzamendi,[Link],[Link] Ball,P.(Eds.).(2012).Second Language Acquisition. Funiber Spain.

Ellis.(1985).Classroom Second Language Development. A Study of Classroom Interaction and

Harley, B., & Hart, D. (1997). Language Aptitude and Second Language Proficiency In Classroom
Learners of Different Starting Ages. Studies In Second Language Acquisition.

Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The Interlangage of Immersion Students and Its Implications
for The Second Language Teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper & A. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage .
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Krashen,S.D.(1982).Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon. Oxford.

Krashen,S.D.(1985). The Input Hypothesis. Issues and Implications. Longman. New York.

Schwartz, B.D. (1993). On Explicit and Negative Data Effecting and Affecting Competence and
Linguistic Behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and

Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis: Just Speaking and Writing Aren’t Enough.

The Canadian Modern Language Review.

Tanaka, Y. (1991). Comprehension and L2 acquisition: The role of interaction. Tokyo: Temple
University Japan.

Yamazaki, A. (1991). The effect of interaction on second language comprehension and