SUBJECT RESIT:

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Student’S name: Abdelmoumin Jallouli

Login : ESFPMTFL2010353

Group: 2015-10

Date: May6th, 2018

GENERAL INFORMATION:

This assignment consists of reflecting 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. Once the student submits the
assignment, he/she shall write to the subject’s professor at that very moment so that the
professor is aware of the student’s assignment and can grade it.

In addition to this, it is very important to read the assessment criteria, which can be found in
the “Subject Evaluation” document.
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.
 Contents
1. Introduction…………………………………………………..... …….4
2. Krashen’s Input Vs Swain’s Output: A Review………………….5
3. Input Vs Output: Extremes or Two Sides of the Same Coin?....7
4. Conclusion……………………………………………………...........8
5. Bibliography…………………………………………………...........9
 Introduction

With the emergence of Applied linguistics as a problem-oriented linguistic discipline, many

theories of Second language acquisition (SLA) have been developed, especially in the 1970s,to explain
how the phenomenon of acquisition occurs. In fact, there are a lot of SLA theories which try to explain
how second language (L2) is acquired and how learning a L2 can be a tough task and different from
learning the mother language. The complexity and multiple nature of the L2 learning process explain
the huge number of theories and models constructed by many scholars to explain this phenomenon.
However, none of them has been able to provide an exhaustive and comprehensive analysis of the
whole issue.

I will make no distinction between learning and acquisition though Krashen (1982) insists that
we should distinguish between the two terms. According to him, “acquisition is an unconscious
process closely associated with informal modes of learning similar to the way we pick up the L1”
(Funiber), while learning is a conscious process and has more to do with how we become competent
in the L2.In this essay , I will try to tackle two seemingly opposite views as of what constitute the core
of L2 acquisition theory , that of Swain’s Output hypothesis and Krashen’s Input hypothesis and
whether it is possible to reconcile these views within the framework of L2 theories or judge them as
incompatible or extremes.

To go through this task, it is important to dismantle the basics of each view to see if there is any
possibility of reconciliation or compatibility.
 Input vs Output: A Review

Krashen’s Monitor Model is considered to be the most comprehensive of second language

acquisition theories. By the beginning of the 1980s, Stephen Krashen formulated the Input Hypothesis
which considers that acquisition takes place only when the learner is exposed to comprehensible
input. According to Krashen, the learner learns and develops the process of his learning from the
reception of comprehensible L2 input. He argues that such input should not be so far beyond the
current level of the learner’s competence (Funiber). That is, if the learner receives comprehensive
language input, language production will naturally take place. Thus, the ability to produce an
utterance or communicate in L2 will be considered as the outcome of language acquisition and not the
cause. Krashen believes that fluency in speaking or writing in a second language will naturally take
place when the learner have already become linguistically competent through comprehensive input.
In reaction to Krashen’s Input hypothesis, Merrill Swain (1985) issued the Output
Hypothesis, one of the greatest unresolved issues in Applied Linguistics studies. Its undeniable
rejection of Krashen’s hypothesis is so apparent. Swain’s output hypothesis states that L2 acquisition
takes place when the learner produces a written or spoken form of language. Swain argues that it is
only during language production stages that learners realize what they know and what they do not
and how the fill in the gap when their linguistic knowledge of the L2 falls short to convey the meaning.
By noticing the gap, the learner becomes aware of it and might be able to modify his/her output so
that he/she learns something new about the target language. Swain (1993) claims that this production
of the language on the part of the learner helps him her in three different ways which constitute of
what Swain calls function of output:
- Noticing function: when learners find themselves unable to say or write exactly what they need for
conveying meaning. They realize that they face some linguistic problems and they must deal with
them to look for adequate knowledge they require to complete the gap.
- Hypothesis-testing function: when a learner produces an utterance or communicate in the target
language, he /she always through a process of testing how his/her hypotheses and drawing
 conclusions. The feedback the learner receives from his/her learning environment enables him/her
to develop his/her linguistic knowledge and to reprocess the hypothesis if necessary.
- Metalinguistic or reflective function: when the learners reflect on the language they learn, they
become able to control and internalize linguistic knowledge. In this respect the language used by
the teacher and the students is seen as a tool conductive to reflection.

In light of what has been mentioned before about the important role of output in L2 acquisition,
Swain, however, admits that output is not solely responsible for L2 acquisition while, on the other
hand, Krashen considers input hugely responsible for language acquisition, swain sees that language
production is of utmost importance while Krashen considers it as not necessary since it will appear
naturally after a certain amount of comprehensible input. Krashen and Swain both refer to the
significant role of input during L2 acquisition. However, both differ in the way how this factor affects
L2 acquisition. For swain, the purpose of input is learning. However, Krashen considers it the result
of language acquisition. Krashen’s hypothesis attempts to answer questions for how language is
acquired while Swain believes that reasonable external factors can also help people learn languages.
 Input vs Output: Extremes or Two Sides of the Same Coin?

To answer this question it is important to shed light on how some scholars see these notions
within L2 acquisition theories, and whether their views are supportive of those Krashen or Swain.
The role of both input and output are generally recognized as important for second language
acquisition. Input is the language data or information the learner is exposed to and has access
to(Funbier,p.38).Ellis (1985) describes it as “the language that is addressed to the learner either by a
native speaker or by another L2 speaker”. According to Krashen (1985), L2 acquisition depends on
comprehensible input. However many scholars such as Swain 1981,1991;Harley & hart,1997;Harley
& Swain,1984 later challenge his hypothesis by showing that comprehensible input alone is not
sufficient for L2 acquisition. These scholars argue that the process of comprehension is different from
the process of production. The ability to understand meaning conveyed by the texts or sentences is
different from the ability to use linguistic knowledge to express meaning. They also add that only when
input is negotiated learners produce output in interaction, that the internalization of what is learned
and experienced will become possible for the learners. In this respect, Schwartz(1993) considers that
input alone can not facilitate L2 learning. Input, thus, can not function completely in SLA until it gets
involved in interaction.
The interactionist theories explain that the acquisition of a language is the result of interaction
between the learner’s mental process and the linguistic environment (Arzamendi, Palacios&Ball,
2012). The interactionists believe in interaction as the main reason of language acquisition, an
interaction that combines both input and output to function as one. During these interactions learners
try their efforts to produce comprehensible output, which will be sources of input for other
interlocutors(Allwright,1984).Tanaka and Yamasaki(1991) also state that though input facilitates the
acquisition of vocabulary in the target language it stays insufficient for the acquisition of many
syntactic structures. Here it is the output that should function to take care of this flaw.

Within the behaviourist theories, output is considered as an imitation of something that has
previously been assimilated (input).According to the behaviourists; a language is acquired by the
production of a series of habits which are enhanced by imitation. They consider the output to be the
natural outcome of input, a fact that makes us realize that despite the fact that both the input and the
output seem as extremes they ,indeed, complete each other.
 To conclude, research in L2 acquisition is an on -going task. Since the 1970s more
researches have tried to explain the acquisition process, focusing more on the problematic
relationship between the input and output hypotheses. Such a relation has stirred so much debate and
generated many opposite views and this have, in fact, contributed greatly to the understanding of how
a language can be learned. Here one can suggest some ideas to reconcile these ideas.
- Comprehensible output is always necessary before any output production, especially if the learner
is a young person who does not possess enough linguistic knowledge to reflect on his /her own
output .That is why it is always better not to force them to speak the target language so as not to
make them more anxious, a matter that will hinder their process of learning as hinted by Swain
that “forcing students to speak English will not improve their ability to speak English”( Korean
Times,2009).
- The focus on either input or output may vary from one learning environment to another. If the
focus falls on syntax, the use of output strategies will be essential to foster reflection and self-
correction. But if the focus is on acquiring new vocabulary the use of input approach will be
eminent.
- If we delve into al language acquisition theories we will realize that most of them confirm my
argument in this essay that the ability to produce the language is the outcome of language
acquisition, as viewed by Krashen, but also its cause, as argued by swain.

Bibliography
 Allwright, R. (1984). The Importance of Interaction In Classroom Language Learning.
Applied Linguistics.
 Arzamendi,J.Palacios,I.and Ball,P.(Eds.).(2012).Second Language Acquisition. Funiber
Spain.
 Ellis.(1985).Classroom Second Language Development. A Study of Classroom Interaction
and language Acquisition. Pergamon. Oxford
 Harley, B., & Hart, D. (1997). Language Aptitude and Second Language Proficiency In
Classroom Learners of Different Starting Ages. Studies In Second Language Acquisition.
 Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The Interlangage of Immersion Students and Its Implications
for The Second Language Teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper & A. Howatt (Eds.),
Interlanguage . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
 Krashen,S.D.(1982).Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon.
Oxford.
 Krashen,S.D.(1985). The Input Hypothesis. Issues and Implications. Longman. New York.
 Schwartz, B.D. (1993). On Explicit and Negative Data Effecting and Affecting Competence
and Linguistic Behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
 Swain, M. (1985). Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and
Comprehensible Output in its Development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second
Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA.: Newbury House.
 Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis: Just Speaking and Writing Aren’t Enough. The
Canadian Modern Language Review.
 Tanaka, Y. (1991). Comprehension and L2 acquisition: The role of interaction. Tokyo:
Temple University Japan.
 Yamazaki, A. (1991). The effect of interaction on second language comprehension and
acquisition. Tokyo: Temple University Japan.