ASSIGNMENT:

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

GENERAL INFORMATION:

This assignment consists of reflecting in pairs on the question below and has to fulfil
the following conditions:

- Length: 5 pages (without including cover, index or appendices –if there are any-).
- Type of font: Arial or Times New Roman.
- Size: 11.
- Line height: 1.5.
- Alignment: Justified.

The assignment has to be done in this Word document and has to fulfil the rules of
presentation and edition, as for quotes and bibliographical references which are
detailed in the Study Guide.

Also, it has to be submitted following the procedure specified in the “Subject

Evaluation” document. Sending it to the tutor’s e-mail is not permitted.

In addition to this, it is very important to read the assessment criteria, which can be
found in the “Subject Evaluation” document.
Yolanda Dávila Hernández and Carmen M. Solano Solano
Assignment - SLA

Assignment:

According to Swain,

...producing the target language may be the trigger that forces the learner
to pay attention to the means of expression needed in order to
successfully convey his or her own intended meaning.
(Swain 1985: 249)

In Swain's view, learners need not only input, but output: they need to use language in
order to learn it. Krashen, however, as recently as 2009, stated that:

Research done over the last three decades has shown that we acquire
language by understanding what we hear and read. The ability to
produce language is the result of language acquisition, not the cause.

Forcing students to speak English will not improve their ability to

speak English. (Korea Times, 2009).

“Is it possible to reconcile these two seemingly opposite views as to what

constitutes second language acquisition or ‘learning’, as Swain puts it? Or do
the two views represent two extremes of both theory and practice?”

Guidelines: To answer this question in essay form, you will need to refer to
alternative concepts of acquisition and learning proposed by other theorists,
judge them in relation to these two apparent extremes of input versus
output, and then try to draw some conclusions. You must ensure that both
Krashen and Swain are discussed within the broader framework of SLA
theory, and thus demonstrate that you understand the general field.

Important: you have to write your personal details and the subject name on the
cover (see the next page). The assignment that does not fulfil these conditions
will not be corrected. You have to include the assignment index below the cover.

2 June 29, 2018

Yolanda Dávila Hernández and Carmen M. Solano Solano
Assignment - SLA

Assignment:

Students’ names: Yolanda Dávila Hernández

Carmen M. Solano Solano

Group: TEFL 2018 02

Date: June 29, 2018

Controversy or Reconciliation Between Input and Output

in the SLA Process?

3 June 29, 2018

Yolanda Dávila Hernández and Carmen M. Solano Solano
Assignment - SLA

Contents

Page

Introduction 5

Controversy or Reconciliation Between Input and Output in the SLA Process? 6

Conclusion 11

References 12

Glossary 14

4 June 29, 2018

Yolanda Dávila Hernández and Carmen M. Solano Solano
Assignment - SLA

Introduction

We have been called to reflect on the question, Is it possible to reconcile

Swain’s Input Hypothesis and Krashen’s Output Hypothesis as to what constitutes
second language acquisition, or do these two views represent two extremes of both
theory and practice?
In the present work we aim to demonstrate that the confronted views of Merrill
Swain and Stephen Krashen on the importance of output in the SLA process is
“seeming” or apparent, as the reflective question states. Through the examination of
several quotes from SLA researchers, we will see that, as the question also states, “It
is possible to reconcile” these views.

5 June 29, 2018

Yolanda Dávila Hernández and Carmen M. Solano Solano
Assignment - SLA

Controversy or Reconciliation between Input and Output in the SLA Process?

Language is a vital part in a person’s life, as Cook (2008:1) calls language “the
most unique thing about human beings.” Referring to second language acquisition, Ellis
(1997) states that it is the way in which people learn a language other than their mother
tongue, inside or outside a classroom. Some theories have aroused from the results of
studies regarding the acquisition of a second language. Theories or approaches try to
provide information about the way learners acquire a second language, frequently
drawing from studies about how we learned our first language.

There are two main views, which ideas are focused on different aspects of the
second language acquisition process, making them difficult to harmonize. While Merrill
Swain (1985) focuses on “the need to convey meaning when learners communicate”
(output), Stephen D. Krashen (1985) emphasizes that “they can communicate because
they understand” (input). Input and Output are two principal hypotheses that can be
thought of as a light that plays an important role on the SLA process.

Input
The Input hypothesis was proposed by Stephen D. Krashen (1985) as part of
the Monitor theory. It sustains that “comprehensible input is the crucial and necessary
ingredient for the acquisition of language” and that "exposure to understandable
information is necessary and sufficient for L2 learning to take place". This hypothesis
highlights the importance of using the Target Language in the classroom, giving as
much comprehensible input as possible, thus providing more opportunities to
communicate effectively.

Krashen (1985), as cited by Arzamendi, Palacios & Ball (n.d.) states that “for
acquisition to occur, input should be always comprehensible and it should, in terms of
complexity, be slightly above the student’s language level”, which he calls i+1. Van
Patten and Cadierno (1993) indicate that "learners process input for meaning before
they process it for form" when learners understand the meaning of the input
(information they are exposed to) and associate it with what they are learning, they
may be able to evolve to the intake process. Arizmendi, Palacios & Ball (n.d.) define
intake as “that part of the input which is really processed and assimilated by the
learner” (p. 38).

6 June 29, 2018

Yolanda Dávila Hernández and Carmen M. Solano Solano
Assignment - SLA

For Krashen, listening is a fundamental step in language acquisition. If the

learners listen and understand, they will be able to speak. The input hypothesis is a
strong supporter of giving language students an initial "silent period." When learners
are silent for long periods of time, they are only memorizing vocabulary, structures,
grammar and do not have opportunity to reproduce. During this period the student
builds up competence by listening. Some studies focused on different theories consider
the silence period as the absence of any L2; however, Krashen asserts that the Silent
Period is an important part of SLA and performs an important function. He states that
“we acquire spoken fluency not by practicing talking but by understanding input, by
listening and reading” and that “It is, in fact, theoretically possible to acquire language
without ever talking” (Krashen 2009:60).

About the Output Hypothesis, Krashen (2009:60-61) theorizes that “Output has
a contribution to make to language acquisition, but it is not a direct one.” For Krashen,
speaking the target language “is not in itself the causative variable in second language
acquisition;” instead, it is the result of the acquisition. He says that the second
language learners’ output affects the input they receive both in quantity and in quality.
The more output they produce, the more input they receive as feedback. The more
errors they commit, the more “foreigner talk” or modified input they receive. He
summarizes: “Output aids learning because it provides a domain for error correction.
When a second language user speaks or writes, he or she may make an error. When
this error is corrected, this supposedly helps the learner change his or her conscious
mental representation of the rule” (p. 62).

Output
In opposition to Krashen's Input Hypothesis is Swain, the most important figure
for Output Hypothesis, who argued that output has a potentially significant role in L2
acquisition, especially in the development of oral fluency. Swain (1985) proposes that it
is through language production that SLA may be more likely to occur. Swain refers that
production of language would force learners to identify what she calls “the gap”
between what learners can say and what they want to be able to say. Furthermore,
Swain (1993) states that practice provide students the opportunity to test themselves
and draw conclusions.

Swain pointed out three functions of output in her thesis: The Noticing Function,
present when -while producing output- learners do not know how to precisely express
the meaning they wish to convey; the Hypothesis Test Function, in which the output is
the means to test a potential hypothesis of the target language and prove if that

7 June 29, 2018

Yolanda Dávila Hernández and Carmen M. Solano Solano
Assignment - SLA

hypothesis is feasible; and the Metalinguistic (reflective) Function, in which the learners
reflect on the language they have learned and the language produced “enables them to
control and internalize linguistic knowledge” (Arizmendi, Palacios & Ball 2018:57).
Swain (1985) points out that output is a means of "building knowledge about language"
(p 478).
In opposition to Swain’s Output Hypothesis, Krashen says, “Merrill Swain
(Swain,1985), does not claim that CO [comprehensible output] is responsible for all or
even most of our language competence. Rather, the claim is that ‘sometimes, under
some conditions, output facilitates second language learning in ways that are different
form, or enhance, those of input’” (Swain and Lapkin 1995: 371). He comments: “A look
at the data, however, shows that even this weak claim is hard to support… Even when
acquirers do talk, they do not often make the kind of adjustments the CO hypothesis
claims are useful in acquiring new forms” (Krashen 1998:180).
Marzieh Mehrnoush and Sima Sayadian (2015:54) provide some additional
details on Merrill Swain’s (1995) Output Hypothesis. They present the following list of
contributions of output to the SLA process, as stated by Skehan in 1998, based in
Swain’s ideas.
1. The learner’s production serves to generate better input through feedback.
2. It forces syntactic processing and forces learners to pay attention to grammar.
3. It allows learners to testify hypotheses about the target language grammar
through the feedback they obtain when they make errors.
4. It helps to automate existing knowledge.
5. It provides opportunities for learners to develop discourse skills.
6. It is important for helping learners to develop a ‘personal voice’ by directing
conversation unto topics they are interested in.

This list of Swain’s hypothesis about the importance of output in the SLA
process amplifies Krashen’s viewpoint of the output only as propiciator of
comprehensible input. Swain’s list comprises not only the fact that output motivates
input, but also the internal processes that occur during such exchange of language.
Negotiation of meaning and error correction –direct or indirect- are also included in this
process. Considering this, output might have a greater effect in SLA than Krashen
admits. The new input and the consequent conversation that emerge from the learner’s
output convey the opportunity to expand his knowledge of the target language. Such
interaction is a valuable and probably memorable lesson that might have not been
available without him starting it with his production.

8 June 29, 2018

Yolanda Dávila Hernández and Carmen M. Solano Solano
Assignment - SLA

In 2005, Swain delivered a speech at the NALDIC (National Association for

Language Development in the Curriculum) annual conference. In an after conference
interview she makes comments that might be significant to this controversy. “I think
immersion programmes and ‘comprehensible input’ got linked in the research literature
because Stephen Krashen spent a sabbatical in Canada… observing immersion
programmes and claimed that they represented the most successful second language
teaching experiment ever,” she claims, “However, that’s not what our research findings
suggested… the French of the FI students was not developing in target-like ways. Yet
we knew that students were getting plenty of comprehensible input… After observing
many immersion classes, I concluded that one of the things that was missing in these
classes were opportunities for the FI students to produce French – to speak and write it
coherently, accurately and appropriately. Et voilà, that was the origin of the ‘output
hypothesis’” (Swain 2005:2).

After defending her view against Krashen’s, Swain speaks about changes in her
own perspective over the years. “Now I talk about ‘collaborative dialogue’ and
‘languaging’ as the key concepts. These concepts are still about “output”, but they put
the emphasis on the co-construction of language as a process (languaging), not a
product (language). The kinds of activities that we’ve been researching engage the
students in speaking and writing and reflecting on what they have said or written – that
is, co-constructing meaning through languaging.” (Swain 2005:2-3).

Conciliating opposite views

Ali Akbar Khansir describes the objective of the Error Analysis branch of the
Applied Linguistics (Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2012:1027) as follows:
“The basic task of Error Analysis is to describe how learning occurs by examining the
learner’s output.” Khansir cites Dr. Jack C. Richard’s (1971:1) definition of the Error
Analysis approach: “the field of error analysis may be defined as dealing with the
differences between the way people learning a language speak and the way adult
native speakers of the language use the language.” Both definitions include the output
element (speak, use) as indicator or evidence of SLA for the researchers.

Haimei Sun cites Michael H. Long (1996) saying: “The Interaction Hypothesis
posits that during negotiation for meaning, learners’… attention may be temporarily
drawn to problematic linguistic codes; interaction therefore provides a platform where
input, feedback, negotiation, and output can work seamlessly with one another” (p. 57).
This hypothesis considers negotiation of meaning and output as integral parts of the

9 June 29, 2018

Yolanda Dávila Hernández and Carmen M. Solano Solano
Assignment - SLA

SLA or language learning process. Long (1996) has pointed out that interactions may
be a way of focusing learner’s attention and allow the learner to process and assimilate
the comprehensible input, which contributes to our understanding. Moreover, the
Interaction hypothesis claims that the effectiveness of comprehensible input is greatly
increased when learners have to negotiate for meaning. Many researchers (Long,
1983; Pica, 1987; Varonis＆Gass, 1985) have stated that interaction containing
negotiation of meaning serves to make input comprehensible for the learner.

According to the Dictionary of Foreign Language Teaching Key Terms (Centro

Virtual Cervantes, 2008), At the beginning, it was postulated that the comprehensible
input is necessary and sufficient for acquisition, but nowadays this idea has been
discarded, since adjustments to input and even the whole discursive interaction are
considered to intervene. This has broadened the field of investigation… to the analysis
of the modifications in the interaction of participants, to the way they mold the input and
to the mechanisms of negotiation of meaning [free translation].

Arzamendi, Palacios & Ball (n.d.:38) compare the learning of a second

language to a cycle in which “it is necessary to go back to areas already studied… to
consolidate them.” Such is the relationship between input and output in the SLA
process. None of both is enough in itself to acquire a new language; however, both
can help the learner in the process of acquiring a second language, especially if there
is negotiation of meaning (exchange for clarification) and foreign language
(simplification).

Examining the quotes here mentioned our answer to the question that
generates this work could be: Although in theory, the Input and the Output Hypotheses
appear to be in controversy, when we consider the results of investigation about the
SLA practice, we find that they do not exclude one another, but rather complement
each other. Krashen’s and Swain’s views on the importance of output in the SLA
process can be reconciled if we see Swain’s perspective as one that does not oppose,
but broaden Krashen’s. The input acts as knowledge, being the basic element to
understand the messages, and the output as the ability to maintain the communication
as a result of the input. Additional variables should also be taken into consideration in
the SLA process, such as environment, personality, attitude, aptitude, and affective
factors, among others (Skehan, 1989: 120, as cited by Arzamendi, Palacios & Ball,
n.d.:35-38).

10 June 29, 2018

Yolanda Dávila Hernández and Carmen M. Solano Solano
Assignment - SLA

Conclusion

Researchers have tried to explain the second language acquisition process

mostly focused on Input and Output hypotheses. These views could be combined as
essential keys to learn or acquire a new language. The two are necessary for
interaction and negotiation of meaning. Comprehensible input and production can
complement each other to help produce more competent learners, despite the
conditions they are exposed to during the learning process.

11 June 29, 2018

Yolanda Dávila Hernández and Carmen M. Solano Solano
Assignment - SLA

References

Arzamendi, J. Palacios, I. Ball, P. (n.d.). Second Language Acquisition, FUNIBER.

Cervantes, Centro Virtual. (2008). Diccionario de términos clave de ELE [Free
translation]. Recovered on June 28, 2018 from:
https://cvc.cervantes.es/Ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/diccio_ele/diccionario/aducto
.htm
Cook, V. (1993) Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York, St. Martin’s
Press.
Ellis, R and He, X. (1999). The Roles of Modified Input and Output in the Incidental
Acquistition of Word Meanings. Study of Second Language Acquisition, Vol.
21, p. 285 301.
Ellis, Rod (1997) Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Khansir, A.A. (2012). Error Analysis and Second Language Acquisition. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 2 (5), 1027.
Krashen, S.D. (1998). Comprehensible Output. Retrieved on June 25, 2018, from
http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/comprehensible_output.pdf
Krashen, S.D. (2009). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition [Internet
Edition]. Retrieved on June 6, 2018 from
http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language. In W.
Ritchie and T.
Long, M. 1983: Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–93.
Mehrnoush, M., & Sayadian, S. (2015). Sla Research Nourishing Language
Teaching Practice. International Journal of Language Learning and
Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), Vol. 8 (3), 54.
Sun, H. (2015). Instructed SLA and Task-Based Language Teaching. The Forum, Vol.
15 (2), 57.
Swain, Merrill (1985) Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input
and comprehensible output in its development. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (2005). Interview with Merril Swain following her keynote speech at the
NALDIC annual conference. Retrieved on June 26, 2018 from:
https://www.naldic.org.uk/Resources/NALDIC/Professional%20Development/Do
cuments/NQ235.pdf

12 June 29, 2018

Yolanda Dávila Hernández and Carmen M. Solano Solano
Assignment - SLA

Van Patten, B. and Cadierno, T. (1993). Input Processing and Second Language
Acquisition: A Role for Instruction. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 77 (1),
45-57.
Van Patten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher's guide to second language
acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill

13 June 29, 2018

Yolanda Dávila Hernández and Carmen M. Solano Solano
Assignment - SLA

Glossary

Comprehensible input - is language input that can be understood by listeners despite

them not understanding all the words and structures in it. It is described as one level
above that of the learners if it can only just be understood. According to Krashen's
theory of language acquisition, giving learners this kind of input helps them acquire
language naturally, rather than learn it consciously.
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/comprehensible-input

Comprehensible output [free translation, Dávila 2018] - This term makes reference to
the language that the learner produces.
https://cvc.cervantes.es/Ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/diccio_ele/diccionario/educto.htm

Pushed output - Swain (1985) claimed that when learners are pushed to produce
language, they may notice the gap between what they intend to utter and what their
interlanguage allows them to say. As Kuiken and Vedder (20 05: 327) note, there
seems to be a connection between learners’ noticing of linguistic forms in the input and
successful learning. However, it is not clear if focusing on a particular language form
promotes the acquisition of that form (Schmidt, 1990, 1995; VanPatten, 1996, 2000;
VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993).
http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/PL_numero22/1%20%20Maria%20Basterrecha.pd
f

14 June 29, 2018