A discussion of the role of inputand output in Second Language

Acquisition

Martina Maria McCarthy

University College Cork

Masters Applied Linguistics

Module: Second Language Acquisition

2014

1

Overview

The aim of this paper is to discuss the role of input and

output in second language acquisition (SLA). Firstly, it is

necessary to give a brief overview of SLA and highlight some

definitional variation within the literature which is relevant to

this discussion.

Ellis defines second language acquisition as ‘the systematic

study of how people acquire a second language…inside or outside

of a classroom’ (1997: 3). There are competing and overlapping

theories pertaining to the role of exposure to and/or interaction

with input (Krashen, 1985; Gass, 1997) and/or production and/or

process of output (Swain, 1985, 1995, 2005; Swain and Lapkin,

1995; He and Ellis in Ellis, 1999). There are many multifaceted

factors which impact upon second language acquisition and

influence the role of input and output in SLA which have been

investigated. These include, for example, biological factors (De

Keyser, 2000), cognitive factors (Anderson, 1993), social factors

(Schmidt, 1983), environmental factors (Krashen, 1976) and

2

motivational variables (Dörnyei, 1990) which all impact upon

interlanguage (Selinker, 1992).

Irrespective of all of these factors, some evidence suggests

that there is natural order of acquisition (Krashen, 1985: 1;

Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982: 200-229). However, SLA research

is dominated by studies of the acquisition of English as a second

language (Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982: 214). The general

observation that ‘learners follow predictable paths’ may only be

true of ESL learners and, as VanPatten claims, such an issue ‘can

only be answered by continued research on a variety of languages’

(2007: 131).

Input and output exist in many different forms and are

referred to differently within SLA literature. The input

received and the output produced by the SL learner may be oral,

written (or aural), which may or may not be ‘comprehensible’

(Krashen, 1985: 4), ‘comprehended’ (Gass, 1997: 5), ‘modified’ or

‘pushed’ (Gass and Mackey in VanPatten and Williams, 2007: 193)

or ‘negotiated through ‘negotiation for meaning’ (Long, 1996:

418) while interacting with an interlocutor who may be a native

or non-native speaker, who may or may not be able to modify

3

‘their input to non-native speakers’ (Schmidt, 1983: 167) within

a context that aids mutual understanding or not and so on.

Long asks ‘why is child SLA generally so successful, but

adult achievement so variable’ (emphasis added) and notes that

perhaps there are ‘critical, or sensitive, periods for SLA’

(2007: 34), as is claimed to be the case with first language

acquisition, which is in itself a hotly contested topic (Ellis,

1994; Aitchison, 1998). Takala (1984) convincingly challenges

Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982) on their ‘suggestion that adults

are inferior to children as language learners’ (Block, 2003: 21).

Schmidt discusses child and adult SLA, concluding that, for the

latter, ‘the relationship between interaction and acquisition is

much less clear’ (1983: 138).

The acquisition/learning context is an important factor in

the role of input and output in SLA as ‘instructed and non-

instructed SLA differ fundamentally from each other in a number

of key issues’ (emphasis added) (Dörnyei, 2009: 20). Krashen

distinguishes between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ (1978: 153),

which is similar, though not identical, to what Ellis terms

‘incidental’ or ‘intentional’ acquisition respectively (1999:

4

35), the former being a subconscious process generally occurring

within a naturalistic environment and the latter being a

conscious process in a classroom setting, for example.

Further to this distinction, Schmidt distinguishes between

‘communicative competence’ and ‘grammatical competence’ (1983:

169) and it is the former focus has been gathering more momentum

in recent SLA research. Block (2003: 26) points out that the SLA

literature first focused on the role of input (Krashen, 1985),

then shifted to interaction (Long, 1981) and later to output

(Swain, 1985). Susanti Barnard points out another important

distinction that ‘“outcome” refers to the effect of a

communication, as opposed to…“output” which is the language

produced…At the early stages of language learning, learners…often

do not produce an output but they can produce an outcome’ (in

Tomlinson, 2007: 187). Moreover, Schmidt argues that the

evaluation of an individual SL learner ‘depends very much on

one’s definition of language and of the content of SLA’ (1983:

168).

Dörnyei concludes that ‘linguistic theories have been rather

unhelpful in explaining language acquisition beyond considering

5

it as a movement through successive grammars (interlanguages)’

(2009: 127). However, Firth and Wagner offer an optimistic

perspective on the relationship between interlanguage and native

speaker–non-native speaker interaction that ‘rather than…

underdeveloped FL [foreign language] ability (i.e., IL

[interlanguage]), we are witness to collaboration, sharing,

resourcefulness…and thus an efficient division of labour between

the participants’ (2007: 766). This view sits nicely between the

perspective of Long, on the one hand, that ‘participation in

conversation with native speakers, made possible through the

modification of interaction, is the necessary and sufficient

condition for SLA’ (1981: 275) and Krashen, on the other, who

argues that ‘comprehensible input is the essential ingredient for

second language acquisition’ (1985: 4).

A discussion on the role of input and output in SLA follows,

outlining some theories of SLA including the Input Hypothesis

(Krashen, 1985), the Input-Interaction-Output Hypothesis (Gass,

1997) and the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1995) and how each theory

6

impacts (theoretically and/or practically) upon second language

acquisition.

7

Theories of SLA

The Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985)

Krashen’s ‘Input Hypothesis claims that humans acquire

language in only one way: by understanding messages or by

receiving “comprehensible input” ’ (1985: 2). This model ‘claims

that for acquisition to take place there must be a period of time

allowed to process input without any pressure to produce output’

(Susanti Barnard in Tomlinson, 2007: 187). In fact, in Krashen’s

striking view, ‘speaking is the result of acquisition and not its

cause… [and] if input is understood, and there is enough of it,

the necessary grammar is automatically provided’ (1985: 2).

Corder (1967) made ‘the distinction between input and intake.

The former is seen as what the learner is exposed to and the

latter as what he or she actually takes in’ (Block, 2003: 17).

This distinction is echoed in, and somewhat explained by,

Krashen’s model via the ‘affective filter’ which must also be

‘low enough to allow the input “in”’ (1985: 4). This model also

places importance on various forms of ‘foreigner talk’

functioning as ‘comprehensible input’. However, even Krashen 8

himself provides a caveat on this as ‘over a long period of time:

errors in the input may be “acquired” by listeners’ (1985: 9).

On the topic of error analysis, Corder (1981) distinguished

between errors and mistakes, the former being more fathomable and

indicative of interlanguage and ‘the latter being a product of

performance and hence unsystematic’ (Block, 2003: 17).

‘Input that contains structures…a bit beyond our current

level of competence’ brings an acquirer from one level of

competence to the next (Krashen, 1985: 2). Krashen suggests that

‘insufficient quantity of input’ and ‘inappropriate quality of

input’ are ‘possible causes of fossilization’ (1985: 43). Hence,

one can deduce from Krashen’s model of SLA that consistent access

to input which contains ‘i + 1’ and is not repetitive in nature

facilitates second language acquisition (1985: 43-44). Of

course, Krashen’s model has been subject to widespread criticism,

not least by McLaughlin (1978) in relation to ‘the concept of i + 1

as being unobservable and hence immeasurable’ (Block, 2003: 21).

According to Ellis, while ‘we can expect some kind of general

relationship between comprehension and acquisition…we should not

necessarily expect a strong relationship’ (emphasis added) (1999:

9

240). Furthermore, results of a study by Ellis et al. (1999:

108) suggest that this relationship ‘is much more complex than

the Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985) recognizes’.

In summary, Krashen’s theory of SLA claims that consistent

access to input facilitates second language acquisition when it

is understood by the learner who has a low affective filter,

having been perhaps modified in some way by the interlocutor,

which is at a level at, or just above, that of the acquirer and

that is rich in variety (all alluded to in Krashen, 1985).

Krashen’s model may need adjustment if findings from Input

Processing are considered. ‘Input Processing (IP)…aims to be a

model of what happens during comprehension… [and] acquisition is,

to a certain degree, a byproduct of comprehension’ (VanPatten,

2007: 115). ‘IP is only concerned with how learners come to make

form-meaning connections or parse sentences.’ (VanPatten, 2007:

127). VanPatten and Houston (1998) draw an important conclusion

regarding the role of attention, input and context in SLA that

‘if learners are at a low level of processing ability (i.e.,

comprehension is effortful)…context may be of use only for

10

learners who are able to process information with little cost to

attentional efforts’ (VanPatten, 2007: 130).

Emphasis is put on the role of input in many SLA theories,

even those which also value output (for example, Gass, 1997

{discussed below}). Similarly, ‘Anderson (1993) and McLaughlin et

al (1983) suggest that learning takes place as a result of

practice, and that a large amount of input is needed in order to

provide sufficient practice that will lead from control to

automatization of knowledge’ (Susanti Barnard in Tomlinson, 2007:

188).

The Input-Interaction-Output Model (Gass, 1997)

Gass’s (1997) Input-Interaction-Output Hypothesis is,

according to Block, ‘a powerful model’ (2003: 28). It views

input (in whatever form) as vital to SLA, and describes a process

whereby, firstly, ‘the learner notices incoming data’ in line

with individual affective, attitudinal and linguistic filters

(apperception stage). The learner then begins to analyse

‘comprehended input’ before moving on to the ‘intake’ stage,

where the learner begins to form and test hypotheses about the

11

L2. The ‘intake’ stage is seen as ‘the pivotal stage between

input and grammar’ and the bridge to the next stage,

‘integration’, where rules about the target language become

strengthened and stored. This process leads to learner output,

which, in turn, and is vitally important in this model, leads to

modified input in the form of negotiation and native-speaker

modification, that is, interaction. (Gass, 1997, as summarized by

Block, 2003: 26-30).

‘During negotiation for meaning, both learners and

interlocutors may request clarification’ and ‘while native

speakers of the target language modify their language to allow

the learner to comprehend (that is, learners ‘receive modified

input’) learners, too, ‘modify their output until (sometimes) an

acceptable level of understanding is reached’ (Mackey, 2007: 13).

‘Implicit forms of feedback…include negotiation strategies such

as…confirmation checks…clarification requests…comprehension

checks…and recasts’ (Gass and Mackey in VanPatten and Williams,

2007: 182). However, it is noteworthy that ‘some native

speakers…are better at modifying their input to non-native

12

speakers, including vocabulary, or at modifying their discourse

structure’ (emphasis added) (Schmidt, 1983: 167).

This model of SLA is cyclical and emphasizes the importance

of interaction between native and non-native speakers for the

reception and production of modified input and output

respectively for second language acquisition.

Overlapping models of the Interaction Hypothesis exist

within SLA literature but which all, nonetheless, in general

encompass ‘input, interaction, feedback and output in second

language acquisition’ (Gass and Mackey in VanPatten and Williams,

2007: 175) where input is seen as ‘the sine qua non of

acquisition’ (176) and ‘highly values pushed or modified output’

(193). ‘Not only perceiving a gap in one’s knowledge but also

simply noticing an error can promote L2 learning. Robinson

(1995) argued that noticing involves “detection plus rehearsal in

short-term memory” (p. 296)’ (Kormos, 2006: 135). ‘Schmidt

claims…contra Krashen…that L2 forms themselves must be “noticed”…

and noticing in this sense is necessary and sufficient for acquisition.’

(Long, 2007: 17). Moreover, ‘attention is believed to be one of

the mechanisms that mediates between input and learning’ and ‘the

13

cognitive constructs of attention and awareness and the related

construct of noticing are part of the interaction-L2 learning

process.’ (Gass and Mackey in VanPatten and Williams, 2007: 186,

187)

In summary, ‘interaction…provides learners with an

opportunity to attend to matters of linguistic form in the

context of meaningful communication.’ (Ross-Feldman, L., in

Mackey, 2007:57). Interaction creates opportunities for learning

in many ways as ‘interaction often involves feedback and

modifications to input and/output... (emphasis added)’ (Mackey,

2007: 24). Mackey illustrates the ‘interactional processes’ of

negotiation for meaning, modified output, feedback and recast in

order to demonstrate the positive impact of these processes on

the development of the L2 learner (2007, 12-24).

14

The Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985, 1995, 2005)

Swain concluded from studies of French immersion schools in

Canada that ‘comprehensible input’ alone was not sufficient for

SLA. This evidence provided the backbone for ‘Swain’s (1985)

‘output hypothesis’ [which] argues that comprehensible output

facilitates acquisition…[and] by pushing learners to produce

coherent and appropriate output, learners are encouraged to move

from semantic/top-down processing to syntactic/bottom-up

processing, thus promoting interlanguage development’ (Susanti

Barnard in Tomlinson, 2007: 188).

Swain (1995, 2005) discusses the role of output in SLA and

explains that output in SLA has ‘noticing/triggering, hypothesis

testing and metalinguistic/reflective functions’ (Beckman

Anthony, 2008: 473-474). In summary, ‘producing language gives

learners opportunities to notice the difference between their

interlanguage and the target, to test their hypotheses about how

the target language works, and to consciously reflect on their

learning’ (Ross-Feldman in Mackey, 2007: 57).

15

Long is also an avid contributor to, and supporter of, the

output hypothesis. ‘Long (1996) sees spoken production as

“useful…because it elicits negative input and encourages analysis

and grammaticization…(p.448)”’ (Ellis, 1999). Hence, issues

relating to monitoring are important to the output hypothesis.

Since ‘monitoring involves both attention and conscious

processing as well as producing output, it can enhance the

efficiency of acquisition’ (Kormos, 2006: 134).

‘Noticing a gap in one’s knowledge…noticing an error…(and)…

making self-initiated and self-completed repair…serve to test

hypotheses about the L2, trigger creative solutions to problems,

and expand the learners’ existing resources (Swain, 1995; Swain

and Lapkin, 1995)’ (Kormos, 2006: 135), hence facilitating SLA.

Conclusion

This paper has given an overview of SLA vis-à-vis the role

of input and output in SLA, tracing the evolution of the focus of

the literature and highlighting issues pertaining to definition

and terminology within the field. Three theories of SLA have

16

been presented as a means of focusing attention on the role of

input and output on SLA. It must be said that no theory of

second language acquisition, presented here or otherwise, is

completely exhaustive as each differs either in terms of source,

domain, content, type and form (as discussed in-depth by Long,

2007: 4-13).

The role of input and output has been discussed and

summarized within each model of SLA. On the whole, it can be

concluded that input and output are vital to SLA through

interaction as even Krashen’s model relies on input described as

‘foreigner talk’ on the part of the interlocutor to facilitate

learner comprehension and, thus, acquisition. In Gass’s cyclical

model, native and non-native speakers work together to reach

mutual understanding through modified input and output. For

Swain, ‘pushed output’ encourages the learner to test hypotheses

about the L2 and engage in various ‘communication strategies’ (as

discussed by Firth and Wagner, 2007) which provide feedback that

facilitates acquisition.

17

In Block’s aptly entitled book ‘The social turn in second

language acquisition’, he predicts that SLA research, and Input-

Interaction-Output research, in particular, ‘will continue to

explore the nature’ and role of input, interaction and output in

SLA, but advises a multidisciplinary approach in attempting ‘to

account for many observed phenomena in SLA’ (2003: 137).

References

Aitchison, J. (1998). The Articulate Mammal (4th edition).

Routeledge

Anderson, J., (1993). Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum

Beckman Anthony, A.R., (2008). Output Strategies for

English Language Learners: Theory to Practice. The Reading

Teacher, 61, 6, 472-482. Accessed 18/12/2013

Block, D., (2003). The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition.

Edinburgh University Press Ltd

Corder, S.P., (1967). The significance of learners’ errors.

International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5: 161-169

18

Corder, S.P., (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage, Oxford

University Press

De Keyser, R., (2000). The robustness of critical effects

in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 22, (4): 449-553. Accessed 10/02/2014

Dӧrnyei, Z., (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign-

language learning. Language Learning, 40: 45–78.

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00954.x. Accessed

10/02/2014

Dӧrnyei, Z., (2009). The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition.

Oxford University Press

Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S., (1982). Language Two.

New York: Oxford University Press

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford

University Press

Ellis, R., (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford

University Press

Ellis, R., (1999). Learning a Second Language through Interaction.

John Benjamins B.V.

19

Firth, A. and Wagner, J., (2007). On Discourse,

Communication and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA

Research. Republication from The Modern Language Journal, 1997,

81, 285-300. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 757-772

Gass, S., (1997). Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey

Kormos, J., (2006). Speech Production and Second Language

Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, New

Jersey

Krashen, S., (1976). Formal and Informal Linguistic

Environments in Language Acquisition and Language Learning,

TESOL Quarterly, 10, (2), 157-168. Accessed 12/12/2013

Krashen, S., (1978). The monitor model of adult second

language performance. In Burt, M., Dulay, H. and

Finocchiaro, M. (eds.), Viewpoints on English as a Second Language,

New York: Regents, 152-161

Krashen, S., (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications,

Longman, London and New York

Long, M., (1981). Input, interaction and second language

acquisition. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Native language and foreign

20

acquisition (sic). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–

278

Long, M., (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in

Second Language Acquisition. In Ritchie, W. and Bhatia, T.

(eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego:

Academic Press

Long, M., (2007). Problems in SLA. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey

Mackey, A., (2007). Conversational Interaction in Second Language

Acquisition, Oxford University Press

McLaughlin, B., (1978). The monitor model: some

methodological considerations. Language Learning, 28 (3): 309-

332

McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T. and McLeod, B., (1983). ‘Second

language learning: An information-processing perspective’.

Language Learning, 33, 135-158

Robinson, P., (1995). Attention, memory and the “noticing”

hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283-331

Schmidt, R., (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the

acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an

21

adult. Sociolinguistics and language acquisition, 137, 174. Accessed

12/12/2013

Selinker, L., (1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage, London: Longman

Swain, M., (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of

comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its

development, in Gass, S. and Madden, C. (eds.), Input in Second

Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Swain, M., (1995). Three functions of output in second

language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.),

Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G.

Widdowson. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press

Swain, M., and Lapkin, S., (1995). Problems in output and

the cognitive process they generate: A step towards second

language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391

Swain, M., (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and

research. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second

language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Takala, S., (1984). ‘A review of Language Two by Heidi Dulay,

Marina Burt and Stephen Krashen’. Language Learning, 84 (3):

157-74

22

Tomlinson, B., (2007). Language Acquisition and Development: Studies

of Learners of First and Other Languages, Continuum

VanPatten, B and Williams, J., (2007). Theories in Second

Language Acquisition An Introduction, Routeledge, New York, London

23