Swain s Output Hypothesis vs Krashen s Input Hypothesis and its implications in the L2 classroom.

Maria del Pilar Castellanos Rueda ITESM San Luis Potosi

Research in second language (L2) learners and their conversational partners has been central to experts since the early 1980s. Researchers have been exploring the role of interaction with respect to the conditions considered theoretically important for SLA, such as the learner's comprehension of input, feedback, and production of comprehensible output (cf. Gass, 1997; Long, 1996; Pica, 1994; Wesche, 1994). The basis for the work in L2 interaction involves the role of comprehensible input (Krashen 1982, 1985) in L2 acquisition. Krashen (1985, p.2) posits that nonnative speakers acquire language by understanding input that contains structures one stage beyond the learner's current level of competence (i+l). Comprehension is achieved in part with the help of extra linguistic information in the context. The process of turning input into intake has been described by Krashen (1983, pp.138-139) as follows: First, learners understand a message using the not yet acquired (+1) L2 structure and somehow connect the form with its meaning. Second, learners must notice a difference between their current interlanguage (IL) competence and the L2 form. If the form then shows up again with enough frequency, it may be acquired . The theory states that we acquire a second language (SL) by going for meaning first, and as a result, we acquire structure. Krashen claims that Acquisition occurs when acquirers understand input for meaning, not when they produce output and focus on form (Krashen, 1982:117). By contrast, new learning strategies focus on speaker s conscious efforts that are directed towards production of output as well as comprehension of input. Merrill Swain acknowledged the role of comprehensible input in SLA. Its role as at minimum, to provide opportunities for contextualized, meaningful use, to test out hypotheses about the target language, and to move the learner form a purely semantic analysis of the language to a syntactic analysis of it. (Swain, 1985, p252) She argues that the development of a learner s communicative competence also depends on the learner s output, which is an independent and indispensable element in the learning process. Learners need opportunities to practice language at their level of English language competency. This practice with English-speaking peers is called Comprehensible Output (CO). Swain has defined comprehensible output as a message conveyed precisely, appropriately and coherently (249), all output that fails to meet the three criteria is defined as incomprehensible output . Most likely, it is beyond the learner s current level of competence.

Many researchers feel that CO is nearly as important as input. The interest in Swain s (1985, 1995) CO Hypothesis is both theoretical and pedagogical. From a theoretical perspective, researchers want to know to what extent learner s output plays a role in SLA. From a pedagogical perspective, knowing the extent in which learners production of comprehensible output affects SLA may provide insights that help educators and language teachers make language learning more effective. Littlewood (1987) constructed a model of advanced language learner s language development, in which he divided communication needs into pragmatic needs, the desire to communicate effectively in a practical sense; and social needs, the desire to communicate appropriately in a cultural sense. According to research, the mere exposure to the target language does not automatically lead to nativelike communicative competence. Learners need to heighten their awareness of pragmatic and social needs as suggested in Littlewood s model so that they will be continually motivated to strive for such communicative competence. Input can and must be made comprehensible through the learner s own social practice, or by pushing for CO. Long (1982:211) pointed out that the learner not only goes through a process of modifying input but also making it comprehensible to eventually structure his output. He suggested three ways to accomplish this: 1) by use of the linguistic and extra linguistic context, 2) through orienting conversation to the here and now , 3)modifying the interactional structure of conversation through such devices as self- and other-repetition, confirmation and comprehension checks and clarification checks. The process of striving for comprehensible output involves a circular movement: the learner starts from pushing for comprehensible output where he is monitoring his output and keeping track of its feedback. The next stage is that he pushes for input which is the correction of or improvement on his incomprehensible output. Finally he goes back to the starting point for comprehensible output again where he is testing out his new hypothesis. In this cycle, we see that one s own comprehensible output can serve as useful comprehensible input. Intake involves a circular movement from input through the internal mechanism to output, then from output to input. Production of output has a direct bearing on the assimilation of input. Both models, Krashen s and Swain s, regard language acquisition as involving a long process and the learners as having to keep moving from one level of competence to a higher level of proficiency. .

The theories are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, their pedagogic relationship is one of symbiosis. In order to gain a complete understanding of SLA, it would be as misleading to look at the role of input in isolation as it was to look at the role of output in SLA in isolation from that of input. Through my experience, I have been able to observe the learning process at different levels. It is a fact that, beginner learners will benefit from Krashen s model and they definitely need a silent period, to process and internalize the L2. But we cannot consent our students to remain at that comfort zone and continue just acquiring input. Linguistic creativity (comprehensible output) should be fostered and stimulated, but the accuracy issue should not stifle individual initiative. We should focus on information conveyed, the originality or creativity of the message. Our challenge as SLA teachers is to sustain and stimulate our learners interest in acquiring L2 proficiency. Furthermore, as an anthropologist, my duty is to explore the many ways in which practices of language use shape patterns of communication, and equip my students from different cultural backgrounds with the necessary skills to become part of an ever-changing world.

References
EGI, T. (2010). Uptake, Modified Output, and Learner Perceptions of Recasts: Learner Responses as Language Awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1-21. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00980.x Izumi, Shinichi (2002). Output, Input Enhancement, and the Noticing Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, pp. 541-577 doi:10.1017/S0272263102004023

Krashen, S.D (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: New Pergamon. Krashen, S.D (1985) The Input Hypothesis. Longman Group Limited. Littlewood, W. (1987). Social and Psychological Influences on Advanced Learners. In J.A Coleman & R. Towel (Eds.), The Advanced Language Learner (pp. 11-27). London: The Association for French Language Studies and Scottish Universities French Language Association. Long, L. (1982) Native Speaker/Non Native Speaker Conversation in the Second Language Classroom. In M.A Clark & 1. Handscombe (Eds.), On TESOL 82 )pp.207-225). Washington, D.C. U.S.: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible Output, From Occurrence to Acquisition: An Agenda for Acquisitional Research. Language Learning, 52(3), 597-647 Swain, M. (1985) Communicative Competence: Some roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development. In S. Grass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA.: Newbury House. Xu, F.(2010). The Role of Input and Interaction in Second Language Acquisition/LE RLE D'INPUT ET D'INTERACTION DANS L'ACQUISITION D'UNE DEUXIME LANGUE. Cross - Cultural Communication, 6(1), 11-17. Retrieved January 2, 2012, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2015988271). Yu, L. (1990).The Comprehensible Output Hypothesis and Self-directed learning: A learner s Perspective!. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada Vol. 8, No.1