Comparative Essay
Input and Output theories
There are different ways in which we can compare theories, hypotheses and ideas on a particular topic. In this case, the aim is to create a contrast between two different theories, proposed by two different authors that are directly related to the acquisition and learning of language. Through this work we can compare the differences and similarities that can present in a learning case, and the differences between it and the acquisition of language. The Input Hypothesis proposed by Krashen in 1977 (which is at first considered one of the five hypotheses about second-language acquisition, to then use the term "input" as the concise group of theories), compared with the Output Hypothesis, proposed by Swain in 1985, are theories that although both are based on the acquisition and learning of a new language (L2), have different points about view on the importance of the development of different skills and competencies that a new student must know. To understand it an adequately, it is necessary to make a general explanation of each theory, and explain the vision and definition their creators give them. On the one hand, the Input Hypothesis by Krashen explains that the most important part of the process is the acquisition of this; therefore, reading and listening skills become essential to achieve the objectives of acquiring a new language. On the other hand, Swain states that through trial and error (by means of attempts), it is possible to learn a new language, accompanied by production skills, better known as speaking and writing. Thus the learner improves grammar and vocabulary; however, while this theory improves the production of language, it is not responsible for learning it completely.
Firstly, even though, input and output are opposite theories, they complement each other, making the learning process successful. As we already know, output and input are very different theories since the first one is related to speaking and writing, which are the skills that allow learners to produce the language; and the second one is related to listening and reading, which are the skills in charge of giving the student the information to acquire fully the language, and using an extra person to understand it better (as reading someone else’s work, or listening a third person speaking). We consider that, so the students can learn a second language properly, they essentially need to acquire the language from the theory to take it into practice. This means that, at the beginning, the learner gets the information about the language he is learning about, the structures, meanings, pronunciation, how it works, etc., through listening and reading. Consequently, these two skills are really important because are the ones that trigger the learning of a new language. Otherwise, once the students have already acquired all the information they needs, they are able to produce the language through two different ways which are speaking and writing. In the first one, the learner can produce language verbally; for example, preparing an oral presentation, debating, or just speaking in class to respond or give his opinion. In the second one, like the name of the skill says, he can produce the language in writing; for example, preparing an essay, writing a story, taking notes, etc. All this information makes us understand that the right way to learn a new language is being conscious that these four skills are necessary. But it is even more important being able to carry out them and develop them correctly in order to achieve the goal of dominating the language that is being learned. Therefore, we can understand that these four skills work together since, even though the learner could use just listening and reading to acquire language, he would not prove that he really learned what he was taught. Consequently, using these two other skills called speaking and writing, the students can show the teacher they can truly put into practice what they learned. This is why, we can finally say that output skills are needed since they let the students produce the language and show what they have learned; however, there is no way that output can work separately without the input part. This is because as we learned during this investigation, both put together the four skills of language that makes a complete and successful language learning.
Secondly, according to Krashen (1985), language is only acquired by understanding the messages, or by receiving comprehensible information. This means that compared to the L2 learners with the Input method, the acquisition of language is more important than the learning of this. Krashen establishes that speech and its speaking ability emerge when vocabulary and terminologies have already been acquired through listening skill. At the same time, grammar is automatically acquired through reading as a skill, with enough information. This is when the author begins using the terminology “i+ 1", to which, although an exact definition has not yet been given, "i" is interpreted as input (which also means the current level of competence) and "i+1" as the following level of competition. This later internalizes it in the grammar and reaffirms that "i+1" is the structure of the next stage of second language acquisition. The same occurs with the definition of "Comprehensible Input" because although it would be an easy term to deduce, Krashen gives it a different meaning, where "comprehensible" and "comprehensed" are not the same. The first means process; nonetheless, the second refers to a type of production or result of the action (acquisition). Swain’s theory refers to learning as the most important part in order to produce speaking and writing in the new language. The skills on which it is based, are concentrated in the production of the new language, where it is tested through the three most known functions on its theory, which are called Noticing function, Hypothesis-testing function, and Metalinguistic function. The first is based on noticing the error when the student communicates through the language he is trying to learn. The second function refers to the students' attempts to reach the result of being able to express themselves with correct grammar and vocabulary. Therefore, the third one is a result of the two first functions, and this one talks about how the student reflects on their mistakes and learn how to communicate correctly. Swain explains that through production skills, a person could learn a new language; nevertheless, he makes it clear that it is not enough learning only these two skills completely, because he deals with them with greater importance just because he thinks, through speech and writing, you can learn a lot. Hence, as a summary of both ideas, it is necessary to clarify that although Swain considers more important using production skills to learn a language, Krashen defends the idea of acquiring the language by listening and reading, which has already been made and proved.
Finally, although both theories (input and output) are very important, output theory is fundamental to prove that students are learning adequately the language. On the one hand, we have input theory, created by Krashen. As we already know, this theory involves reading and listening skills, and what they have in common is that through them, learners can acquire the language they are learning. However, we have to keep in mind that there are many factors that influence the acquisition of a second language, such as the environment and the context the learner is immersed in or how comfortable and confidence he feels at the moment of acquiring the language; accordingly, these factors can make the process of acquisition easier or more difficult to be carried out. As we can see, input theory is not only focused on how the learner acquire the new language, but is also focused on the different factors that can impact on it. On the other hand, we have output theory, created by Swain. This theory involves writing and speaking skills, which are the ones that allows students to produce the language they are learning. What is very important about this theory is the idea that students can show that they are actually learning the new language through producing it. Moreover, we must consider that when students learn a new language, they do it consciously since they must process the information they are receiving through input, and understand it to really learn it. After these processes learners can actually learn the second language. Because of all this previous information, we can say that even though without input it is impossible that learner acquire the second language, output is a little bit important than input. What makes us thinking this way, is the fact that the only way the learner can prove and show the teacher he is really learning the second language is through output. When we write a paragraph or when we are able to speak to transmit ideas and emotions, it is a real demonstration that we understand what we have learned, and we can take that information put it into practice. From our point of view, it is very important the process we pass through to absorb and acquire the information about the language we are learning it becomes useless if we cannot put in into practice or use it to communicate, though. Therefore, we consider that both theories are very important when we are trying to dominate a new language; nonetheless, output is a little bit important than input since is the output theory the one that focus on the production of language. As we state previously, production is the way we can prove that we not only acquire theatrically the language, but also we learn it adequately to be able to use it and dominate it properly.
As a conclusion, there are many ideas that can be developed comparatively in these two theories, placing special emphasis on their differences. Although, these two theories could work as a complement of each other, since both are based on the four skills that are used to learn a language as well as for the communication and to express this; the production skills (speaking and writing), are the ones who allow us to demonstrate the domain we have over the second or new language. In our second comparison, we have the idea that both processes (acquisition and learning), are of utmost importance for a new language, since although one is about getting knowledge, the other is based on acquiring that knowledge through study and experience. We could not say which of the terms is the most important or influential. The third idea we have developed is about the differences between the abilities that input and output have and the ways in which they are affected by different factors during the learning process. The environment, which can produce certain effects in students, such as fear and insecurity when trying to learn a new language. It is here, where the production skills are more necessary, since they encourage the learners to leave their comfort zone where they always find themselves and through an oral or written conversation, use an extended vocabulary, pushing them to learn beyond what they already know. As a final summary and to emphasize our opinion and evaluation about the comparison of both theories, our conclusion is that despite their similarities and differences, we believe that a perfect theory would be the combination of these two, since the four skills would make learning and acquisition, a complete process to reach the goal of dominating a new language.
References
● Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
● Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Harlow: Longman.
●Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
●Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
●Swain, M. (1998). The Output Hypothesis and the role of prompts in corrective feedback. In Second Language Learning Theories (pp.175-178). New York, United States: Routledge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFLECTION
The work that I am proud of is my comparative essay. In this essay, I compared and contrasted two theories about learning and acquisition of a second language, managing to mark the differences between this, but also alluding to their similarities. This work makes me feel proud since I feel able to understand different types of theories or hypotheses, managing to have a vision and a point of view of each one of them; compare the ideas of the authors, but also from my point of view where the most important thing is learning itself. Thus, I can express my opinion as a student who in the future will be a teacher, on how to learn (and also teach) a second or new language.