Introduction

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. 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, cognitive factors, social
factors (Schmidt, 1983), environmental factors (Krashen, 1976) and motivational
variables 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). However, SLA research is dominated by studies
of the acquisition of English as a second language. 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’
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’ 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

1
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). Krashen distinguishes between
‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’, which is similar, though not identical, to what Ellis terms
‘incidental’ or ‘intentional’ acquisition respectively, 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’ 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. 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’. 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).
Krashen concludes that ‘linguistic theories have been rather unhelpful in
explaining language acquisition beyond considering it as a movement through
successive grammars (interlanguages)’. 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’.
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).
2
 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 and how each
theory impacts (theoretically and/or practically) upon second language acquisition.

1. Input
In language learning, input is the language data which the learner is exposed to. It is
commonly acknowledged that for second language acquisition to take place there
must be two prerequisites: L2 input available to the learners and a set of internal
mechanism to account for how L2 data are processed (Ellis, 1997). Towards the issue
of input there are generally three views: behaviorist, mentalist and interactionist view,
each holding a different emphasis in explaining SLA.

A behaviorist view treats language learning as environmentally determined,

controlled from outside by the stimuli learners are exposed to and the reinforcement
they receive. In contrast, mentalist theories emphasize the importance of the learner’s
‘black box’. They maintain that learners’ brains are especially equipped to learn
language and all that is needed is minimal exposure to input in order to trigger
acquisition (Ellis, 1997). Interactionist theories acknowledge the importance of both
input and internal language processing, emphasizing the joint contribution of
linguistic environment and the learners’ inner mechanism in interaction activities,
which I will discuss later.

Krashen was an important figure whose input hypothesis once exercised powerful
influence on SLA. According to his input hypothesis, SLA takes place when the
learner understands input that contains grammatical forms that are at ‘i+1’ (i.e. are a
little more advanced than the current state of the learner’s interlanguage). He suggests
that the right level of input is attained automatically when interlocutors succeed in
making themselves understood in communication (Krashen, 1985:2)

3
 1- 2 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’. 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).
He 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’. 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 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,
4
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 by product of
comprehension’. ‘IP is only concerned with how learners come to make form-
meaning connections or parse sentences.’. 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’.

1. 3 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 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).
‘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’. ‘Implicit forms of feedback…include negotiation strategies such
as…confirmation checks…clarification requests…comprehension checks…and
recasts. 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’ (Schmidt, 1983: 167).

5
 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’ where input is seen as ‘the sine qua non of
acquisition’ and ‘highly values pushed or modified output’. ‘Not only perceiving a
gap in one’s knowledge but also simply noticing an error can promote L2 learning.
He argued that noticing involves “detection plus rehearsal in short-term memory”.
‘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.’

In summary, ‘interaction…provides learners with an opportunity to attend to

matters of linguistic form in the context of meaningful communication.’. Interaction
creates opportunities for learning in many ways as ‘interaction often involves
feedback and modifications to input and/output... (emphasis added)’. 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).

1. 4 Other types of language input

Because Krashen’s input hypothesis limits SLA to merely exposure to
comprehensible input, many criticisms have been directed to it around the nature and
the type of language input for SLA. In this regards, other types of language input such
as incomprehensible input and comprehensible output are also considered to enhance
the process of SLA through providing the necessary input.

One of the potential types of language input is incomprehensible input. In his

incomprehensible input hypothesis, White underlined the point that when language
learners come across language input that is incomprehensible because their
interlanguage rules cannot analyze a particular second language structure, they have
to modify those interlanguage rules to understand the structure. This way, the
incomprehensible input enhances the process of SLA. According to White, when an
6
aspect of the language input is comprehensible, the acquisition of the missing
structures may not take place. As a matter of fact, the incomprehensibility of some
aspects of the language input to the language learners draws their attention to specific
features to be acquired. Another type of language input is comprehensible output
which is somehow similar to modified output.

In her comprehensible output hypothesis, Swain (1985) argued that in addition to

comprehensible input, comprehensible output has the potential to boost SLA. Based
on comprehensible output hypothesis language learning is reached when the language
learner faces a gap in his/her linguistic knowledge of the second language. By noticing
this gap, the language learner tries to modify his/her output.

This modification of output may enhance acquiring new aspects of the language that
have not been acquired yet. In line with Swain, Romeo he advocated the
comprehensible output by highlighting t6he point that output of some type is seen as
a necessary phase in language acquisition. On the one hand, teachers need students’
output in order to be able to judge their progress and adapt future materials to their
needs. On the other hand, learners need the opportunity to use the second language
because when faced with communication failure, they are forced to make their output
more precise.

2. Output
Output is the language a learner produces. Swain, the most influential figure for
Output Hypothesis, has argued that comprehensible output also plays a part in L2
acquisition. She pointed out early in 1985 that only when learners are “obliged” to
produce comprehensible output otherwise comprehensible input alone is insufficient
to L2 learning process.

According to her there is no better way to test the extent of one’s knowledge
(linguistic or otherwise) than to have to use that knowledge in some productive way—
whether it is explaining a concept to someone (i.e. teaching) or writing a computer
program, or in the case of language learning, getting even a simple idea across, and
in doing so, he might modify a previous utterance or he might try out form that he had
not used before. However, prior to her important paper in 1985, output was
traditionally viewed as a way of producing what had previously been learned and the

7
idea that output could be part of the learning mechanism itself was not seriously
contemplated(Gass & Selinker 2001).

Then in 1995, she stated that output might stimulate learners to move from the
semantic, open-ended, nondeterministic, strategic processing prevalent in
comprehension to the complete grammatical processing needed for accurate
production. Output, thus, would seem to have a potentially significant role in the
development of syntax and morphology.

Gass (1997) summarizes the four functions of output in L2 learning based on Swain’s
ideas: testing hypothesis about the structures and meanings of L2; receiving crucial
feedback for the verification of these hypotheses; forcing a shift from more meaning-
based processing of the second language to a more syntactic mode; and developing
fluency and automaticity in interlanguage production.

The last significant function of output is to create greater automaticity, which is one
pedagogical goal in SLA. Little effort is required to execute an automatic process
(involved when the learner carries out the task without awareness or attention) as it
has become routinized and automatized just as the steps involved in walking towards
a bike, getting out the key, unlocking it, pushing it, getting on it and riding it, requiring
little thought and less time.

Mclaughlin claimed that automatization involves “a learned response that has been
built up through the consistent mapping of the same input to the same pattern of
activation over many trials.” Here this notion is extended to output, meaning that
consistent and successful mapping or practice of grammar to output results in
automatic processing.

In many researchers’ opinion, automaticity benefits learning. Firstly, as automatic

processing consumes fewer attentional resources than does controlled processing
(involved when conscious effort and attention is required to perform a task), the more
automatic performance becomes the more attentional resources left over for other
purposes. For example, if one can handle the phonology and syntax of a second
language automatically, then more attention can be paid to processing semantic,
pragmatic, and sociolinguistic levels of communication. Secondly, when a
8
mechanism becomes automatic it will process information very quickly and
accurately. Thirdly, there are strong reasons for associating automaticity with
important aspects of fluency.

2 . 1 The Definition of Fluency

Many researchers in SLA have attempted to define it. Fluency represents the ability
to speak or read quickly, accurately, and without undue hesitation, then automatic
execution of certain aspects of L2 performance such as pronunciation, grammatical
processing, and word recognition would, by definition, promote fluency. Here, oral
fluency is of my interest, for speaking, an indicator of L2 proficiency is the most
difficult skill for English learners in China to master.

Oral fluency is a relative conception, which in FL learning means the ability a learner
has to express his or her thoughts freely and easily. They classified these abilities into
three types: semantic fluency, lexical and syntactical fluency, and phonetic fluency.
On the other hand, assumed that fluency was “the maximally effective operation of
the language system so far acquired by the student”.

He hypothesized that fluency was not only applicable to speech production (speaking
and reading) but also to speech distinction (listening and reading). Besides the skills
they needed, speech production and speech distinction were also affected by a number
of social and cultural factors. Therefore, two dimensions should be considered in the
explanation of fluency: acceptability and continuity. Meisel (1987), in support,
insisted that fluency be defined in terms of communicative acceptability.

A more influential definition was proposed by Fillmore (1979), who discussed

fluency in terms of oral production and distinguished four abilities manifested in L1
oral fluency. According to him, a thorough consideration should be given to
“fluency”, “correctness”, “flexibility” and “creation”, the four abilities involved in
language production when oral fluency is measured. He also stressed that fluency
should not be separated from meaning conveyed by sentences because it reflected
the learner’s ability to cope with real communicative events.

9
2. 2 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’.

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’. 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’

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’.
‘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 ( hence
facilitating SLA.

10
 This paper has given an overview of SLA and 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.

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’ 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’.

11
 References

 Block, D., (2003). The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Edinburgh
University Press Ltd
 Corder, S.P., (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage, Oxford University
Press
 Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University
Press
 Ellis, R., (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press
 Gass, S., (1997). Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner.
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., (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications, Longman,
London and New York
 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
 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
 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.

12