Next Language Acquisition: Swain’s Output Vs Krashen’s Enter

1. Introduction: Input compared to Output. A common overview

In purchase to assess how appropriate Krashen’s and Swain’s sights are, it is necessary to 1st define the basic principles of just about every see, that is, the major tenets of their hypotheses.

As component of his Monitor Design, Krashen (1981,1982, 1985) formulated the Input Speculation, which promises that language enter (listening and examining comprehension) constitutes the main communicative approach by way of which we purchase a second language. Krashen thinks that fluency in speaking or writing in a 2nd language will by natural means arrive about immediately after learners have designed up ample competence by means of comprehending enter. Even so, it is not just any kind of input that is suitable or productive, or as Krashen puts it, not all enter will produce consumption. The phrase “intake” is closely linked to how affective things affect second language acquisition (SLA from now on), and this is how this writer refers to the volume of enter that is properly assimilated by the learner. In these kinds of direction, he said that it was only “comprehensible input” which would be successful for SLA. Such enter is the one which is only slightly over the latest stage of the learner’s competence, which he represented with the easy components I + 1, where by I = input. This input is built comprehensible because of the assistance supplied by the context. Therefore, if the learner receives comprehensible input, language structures will be in a natural way acquired, in accordance to Krashen. As a result, the means to talk in a 2nd language will arise as a consequence of comprehensible input. Moreover, as portion of his Affective Filter Hypothesis, previously place forward by Dulay and Burt (1977), Krashen argues that learners are not to be compelled to create language, as this would carry about a sizeable quantity of stress, which would trigger them to develop a substantial affective filter that would prevent them from getting the concentrate on language smoothly.

In opposition to Krashen’s Enter Speculation lies the Output Hypothesis, issued by Swain (1985). In contrast to the former, Swain’s hypothesis proposes that it is as a result of language manufacturing (composed or spoken) that SLA may possibly be additional possible to arise. This is so since, as claimed by its creator, it is for the duration of language production stages that learners realise what they know and what they will not. This could materialize when a learner is making an attempt to express a concept but his or her linguistic know-how of the next language is insufficient to do so. It is then that the learner realises that s/he ignores some handy language structures and/or text needed to express a wished-for concept. This situation is what Swain refers to as the “gap” amongst what one particular can say and what a single would like to be able to say. And it would be on realizing this gap, that learners are enthusiastic in direction of modifying their output in buy to master some thing new about the focus on language. In addition to, this speculation asserts that language production aids learners in four various strategies (Swain, 1993). The 1st derives from the point that language creation delivers prospects for significant exercise, letting the enhancement of automated linguistic behaviours. The second is connected to that which forces the learner to swap from semantic psychological procedures to syntactic ones. As Krashen (1982) instructed: “In lots of instances, we do not make the most of syntax in comprehension, we generally get the concept with a blend of vocabulary, or lexical details as well as added-linguistic data”. Whilst in an knowledge procedure the use of syntax could not be vital, it is in the output stages that learners are forced to look at syntactic areas of the target language.

The 3rd way in which language creation assists learners in acquiring a L2 is via tests hypotheses, considering the fact that output offers learners with the option to examination their very own hypotheses, and withdraw their very own conclusions. This third aspect is closely linked to the fourth just one, which specials with the responses of other speakers of the language, particularly indigenous types, which can give learners data on how comprehensible or perfectly-fashioned their utterances are.

It need to be said that, regardless of all emphasis being laid on output, Swain admits that output is not solely accountable for SLA.

To sum up, wherever Krashen sees enter massively dependable for language acquisition, Swain considers output wherever the latter statements language generation to be of utter great importance, the former regards it as not needed, as one thing that really should not be forced, considering that it will show up by natural means right after a specific amount of comprehensible enter.

Right before continuing with this write-up, it should be pointed out that no distinction involving the terms “mastering” and “acquisition” is staying made, as most authors do not take into consideration it amongst their theories of SLA.

2. Enter and Output: rejecting or complementing each and every other?

In this section we will be searching at how the conditions enter and output have been dealt with by other authors, and whether or not these assistance both Krashen’s or Swain’s sights of SLA, and in what means they do so. We will also take into account if these two concepts are opposites or only two sides of the exact coin.

Originated by the operate of Chomsky (1957), the Generative Paradigm arose as a clear opposition to the structural solution to linguistics. And, even though this paradigm did not deal with how languages have been uncovered, it did however take into consideration the term output within one particular of its most important features, presented the value of the innovative mother nature of language use in this paradigm. It is in this article where by output is very first remotely considered, as creativity calls for output and this may well be understood as the quite main of output. What’s more, according to Chomsky, creativity has to appear hand in hand with compliance to rules, as any sort of generation ought to choose element inside a framework ruled by a established of principles. It is right here the place Swain’s hypothesis may perhaps receive support, considering the fact that she thinks that production potential customers learners to think about syntax as such, which can be considered as that set of regulations which governs a specific communicative framework.

Transferring now toward the field of SLA particularly, we locate three unique theories that goal at describing how language is obtained, and these are the behaviourist, nativist and interactionist theories. We will aim to begin with on behaviourist and nativist sights.

As significantly as behaviourism is anxious, a language is acquired by the creation of a series of behaviors which are acquired by imitation. Hence, we can come across both input and output in this principle, given that learners imitate (output) anything that has earlier been assimilated (enter). As regards nativist theories, although discovering a language, learners are continually forming hypotheses based on the information and facts gained (enter). Having said that, they also examination these hypotheses as a result of speech (output) and comprehension (input).

So we can see how, inside behaviourist theories, output is viewed as as imitation, which accounts for Swain’s argument linked to the generation of automated linguistic behaviours. From a nativist position of look at, the Output Speculation is also backed, considering the fact that it would be by means of speech that learners exam what they know and what they do not. In the exact same way, both behaviourist and nativist theories stand beside Krashen’s Enter Speculation, as they the two explicitly think about output to be a organic consequence of input. So it is at this position that we can see how these two seemingly opposite hypotheses start off complementing somewhat than denying every other’s validity.

Insofar as interactionist theories are worried, they regard the acquisition of a language as the outcome of the interaction concerning the learner’s mental method and the linguistic environment (Arzamendi, Palacios and Ball, 2012, p.39). It is here where we can also take pleasure in a mixture of equally input and output, doing the job as a single. Interactionist theories consider in conversation as the key reason of language acquisition. It is hence a obvious case in point of the validity of the two enter and output hypotheses.

The value of conversation as the result in of language mastering is supported by a study carried out by Pica, Young and Doughty (1987), which proved up to a certain position that Krashen’s comprehensible enter was much less successful than conversation, which indicates not only enter but also output.

In the similar course, Ellis (1985), outlined an “optimum understanding natural environment”, to which he bestowed a number of options linked to output as well as enter. He talked about the great importance of publicity to a fantastic offer of input, which comes hand in hand with Krashen’s Input Speculation, but he also pressured the importance of output. He does so by highlighting the need for learners to understand L2 interaction as a thing helpful (meaningful communication, as Swain puts it). Other than, the prospect for uninhibited observe in buy to experiment is also stressed by this author. In this last assertion we can see not only Swain’s check out of output as a means of language speculation screening, but also Krashen’s worth of a minimal affective filter, given that inhibition would clearly restrain a learner’s linguistic overall performance. In this way, not only Swain’s and Krashen’s speculation look a lot more alike, but they start out needing every single other in purchase to exist flawlessly.

In just sociolinguistic versions of SLA, input is plainly dealt with, in particular in the Nativisation Product (Andersen, 1979). This product emphasises the value of input and how learners internalise the L2 process. According to this design, learners interact with enter in two ways, they adapt input to their view of the L2 and they adjust their interior linguistic technique to accommodate that specific enter, in get to get L2 sort options. This idea plainly matches the relevance Krashen provides to input as the means of buying a language.

If we move on to linguistic designs of SLA, we will come across that Hatch (1978) discounts with the worth of each input and output in his Discourse Idea. Hatch spots meaning negotiation at the main of his idea. In this way, input gains importance, as L2 innovative or indigenous speakers regulate their speech when addressing an L2 learner. So, enter results in being comprehensible for the learner, which is a crucial issue in Krashen’s speculation. Nonetheless, this theory also states that the normal way of buying a language is a consequence of finding out how to maintain discussions. And it is in this feeling that output gets to be significant also, due to the fact in buy to interact in conversation, which entails language manufacturing, it is as essential as comprehending. Also, and according to this SLA concept, the learner utilizes vertical buildings to construct sentences, which implies borrowing chunks of language from previous discourse to which s/he provides components of his or her own. In this way, learners are experimenting and screening their hypotheses on the language, which is one of the techniques in which output prospects to SLA, in accordance to Swain (1985, 1993).

And this is how we arrive at Swain’s Output Speculation, which is a linguistic model, and Krashen’s Enter Speculation, which constitutes a cognitive design for SLA. Though the most important tenets of 1 seem to reject individuals of the other, we have noticed how, much from opposing, they enhance each and every other.

3. Reconciling Krashen’s enter and Swain’s output sights

It is time now to deal with the most important goal of this assignment, reconciling Swain’s and Krashen’s sights. In order to do so, we will see how both hypotheses are appropriate but incomplete at the identical time.

The Input Speculation statements that fluency in speaking or creating in the L2 will naturally arise after learners have accomplished sufficient competence by way of comprehensible enter (Wang and Castro, 2010). On the other hand, the reports of Tanaka (1991) and Yamakazi (1991), in Wang and Castro (2010), expose that while input facilitates significantly the acquisition of vocabulary in the target language, it does not cater for the acquisition of quite a few syntactic constructions. For that reason, comprehensible input is important but not enough in acquiring SLA. It is the Output Speculation that can take treatment of this flaw. According to Swain (1993), producing language would drive learners to recognise what they do not know or know only partially, which she phone calls the “gap” among what learners can say and what they want to be ready to say. In her feeling, when encountered with these kinds of hole, learners can react in three diverse strategies. A person would be to disregard it. One more to look for in their possess linguistic expertise to uncover or construct the solution and the last 1 is to detect what the gap is about and then spend consideration to applicable enter which may well cater for this deficiency of know-how. This third response establishes a partnership concerning input and output that gains SLA. As a final result of this, learners are much more likely to improve their input processing capacity mainly because their output has centered their notice on the require to do so. (Swain, 1993)

We can see now how Swain’s Output Hypothesis accepts enter as an crucial portion of SLA, while Krashen’s watch is marginally additional slanted. In his do the job Comprehensible Output (1998), in which he assesses the effectiveness of comprehensible output (CO), Krashen criticizes CO as a suggests of getting a L2. Among other troubles or flaws in Swain’s hypothesis, he argues that being compelled to talk, as part of CO, leads to distress, that is to say, to panic on the element of the learner. In accordance to Young (1990) and Laughrin-Sacco (1992), in Krashen (1998), international language pupils obtain speaking to be the maximum anxiousness-triggering activity. Additionally, he puts ahead what Value (1991) said, that not getting in a position to converse effectively potential customers to a fantastic offer of aggravation.

These two arguments obviously assist Krashen’s Affective Filter Speculation. Nervousness and stress might trigger small commitment and tiny self-self-assurance, which could provoke higher affective filters on the aspect of the university student and, consequently, small ingestion may consider area.

Despite the fact that Krashen has designed a good issue on how CO could have less strengths than it would seem to, he also grants it a position in his Monitor Model, as component of his Watch Hypothesis. In accordance to Krashen (1985) the “monitor” is an inside enhancing machine that may function just before or following output having location. In buy to do so, the learner has to know the appropriate guidelines of speech. Irrespective of the absence of supportive investigate evidence for this hypothesis, if we choose Krashen word by phrase, we understand that we edit or correct what we utter prior to or immediately after we do so. In this way, if we do it before, we are making use of inner know-how in get to edit a little something we are about to deliver if we do it soon after, we are correcting a miscalculation, which is in essence screening a speculation that has proven to be completely wrong. Just after carrying out so, we can re-prepare it in our head to correct it or basically target our focus on the expertise we will need to purchase to be capable to deliver a hypothesis which turns out to be appropriate. It is here the place we see two of the positive aspects of output mentioned by Swain: testing a hypothesis and recognising what a person does not know but requires to.

It is very clear by now that both equally hypotheses are neither improper nor complete. In any situation, they can enhance each individual other in buy to deliver a extra integral speculation.

As a ultimate summary, one particular could possibly propose certain tips so as to set an conclusion to this unsettling disagreement.

To begin with, a particular sum of comprehensible enter is vital in advance of making any form of output in any way. This may well be additional significant with young learners than with adults, due to the fact the latter have a greater manage in excess of affective problems. Young learners even so, apart from not obtaining adequate linguistic expertise so as to mirror on their individual output, they could come to be additional anxious by getting compelled to converse, if it is not done in a very careful way.

Next, the use of both enter or output may perhaps vary in accordance to the variety of language acquisition we are attempting to realize. If the concentrate is on syntax, we shall use output procedures, which allow for a bigger amount of reflection and self-correction. However, if we are functioning on vocabulary acquisition, an input technique will in all probability establish to be extra successful.

Ultimately, learners should to make use suggestions that they can get hold of from other speakers of the language, and this is accomplished only through language creation. Other speakers’ responses will offer learners with informative feedback on the comprehensibility and/or precision of their utterances. In a language mastering ecosystem, this feedback could arrive from the instructor or from other learners.

If we adhere to these pointers, drawn from the two Krashen’s and Swain’s arguments, the capability to make the language will not only be the end result of language acquisition, as the former argues, but also the cause, as Swain thinks.


  • Arzamendi, J., Palacios, I. and Ball, P. (Eds.) (2012). Next Language Acquisition. FUNIBER.
  • Krashen, S.D. (1981). Next Language Acquisition and 2nd Language Mastering. Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Krashen, S.D. (1985). The Input Speculation. Troubles and Implications. New York: Longman.
  • Ellis, R. (1985). Classroom 2nd Language Growth. A Analyze of Classroom Conversation and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.


  • Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and Exercise in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Krashen, S.D. (1998, June). Comprehensible Output. System, 26(2), 175-182. Acquired on 11th February 2013, from
  • Swain, M. (1993, October). The Output Hypothesis: Just Talking and Producing Are not Enough. The Canadian Modern day Language Evaluate, 50(1), 158-164.
  • Wang, Q. and Castro, C.D. (2010, June). Classroom Interaction and Language Output. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 175-186.