A discussion of the role of input and output in

Second Language Acquisition

Martina Maria McCarthy

Masters Applied Linguistics

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 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,

2
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

‘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: 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”
3
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 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 impacts (theoretically

and/or practically) upon second language acquisition.

4
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 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
5
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: 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 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).

6
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 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 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.

7
 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 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).

8
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).

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.

9
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 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.

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).

10
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

 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.

11
 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 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

12
 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 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

13
 Takala, S., (1984). ‘A review of Language Two by Heidi Dulay, Marina Burt and Stephen

Krashen’. Language Learning, 84 (3): 157-74

 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

14