first Introduction: Input vs. Output. General Overview

In order to assess whether Krashen and Swain's views are compatible, it is essential to first outline the basics of each view, that is, the main points of their hypothesis.

Krasen (1981, 1981, 1985) formulated the input hypothesis that language acquisition (understanding of hearing and reading) is the most important communicative process through which we acquire the second language. Krashen believes that the fluency of speech or writing in another language will of course come about after the students build up sufficient competence through understanding. However, it is not just the right or the most effective input, or, as Krashen says, not all inputs will generate revenue. The term "input" is closely related to how affective factors affect the second language acquisition (SLA now) and describe the amount of input actually received by the learner. In that direction, it was stated that this was only a "comprehensible input", which would be effective for the SLA. This input is only slightly above the student's current level of competence, represented by the simple formula I + 1 where I = input represents. This input becomes understandable because of contextual support. Thus, if the student gets an understandable input, the language structures are acquired, of course, according to Krashen. Therefore, communication capability will appear in another language as a result of understandable input. In addition, as part of the Affective Filter Hypothesis presented by Dulay and Burt (1977), Krashen argues that students should not be forced to produce language as this would cause significant anxiety that would create a highly affective filter that would prevent satisfying the target language.

In contrast to Krashen's input hypothesis, Swain (1985) is the Output Hypothesis. Unlike earlier, Swain's hypothesis suggests that language writing (written or verbal) is likely to make SLA likely to occur. This is because, according to his author, during language preparation students learn what they know and what they do not know. This can happen if you are trying to convey the student's messages, but the language skills of the second language are not sufficient for this. At this point, the learner realizes that he ignores some useful language structures and / or the words for expressing the desired message. This is what Swain refers to as "gap" that you can say and what you want to say. And recognizing this difference would be that students are motivated to change their outcomes in order to get to know something new in the target language. In addition, this hypothesis argues that language making in four different ways helps learners (Swain, 1993). The first is the fact that language making provides an opportunity for meaningful practice, enabling automatic language behavior. The second is the one that forces the learner to switch from semantic mental processes to syntactic changes. As Krasen (1982) suggested, "In many cases we do not use syntax to understand, we often get the message by combining vocabulary or lexical information with extra language information." While in a process of understanding the use of syntax is not strictly necessary, students in the production stages must take into consideration syntactic aspects of the target language.

The third language-creation method helps students learn L2 in hypothesis testing, as output allows students to examine their own hypotheses and withdraw their own conclusions. This third aspect is closely related to the fourth, which deals with other language lessons, especially native languages, which allow learners to understand or formulate their expressions.

despite the focus on performance, Swain acknowledges that output is not solely responsible for SLA

. To sum up, where Krasen sees great inputs for language recording, Swain considers the output; if the latter considers language learning to be of paramount importance, the former does not consider it necessary to do something that is not compulsory as it will, of course, appear in a sense in the sense of a wording.

Before continuing this article, it should be noted that there is no distinction between "learning" and "acquisition" as most authors do not consider it in the SLA theories. Input and output: Reject or supplement each other?

In this section, we will look at whether the authors have considered other authors with input and output terms and whether they support Krasen or Swain's views of the SLA as they do so. We also examine that these two concepts are contradictions or simply two sides of the same coin. Chomsky (1957), the generative paradigm is clearly contrary to the structural approach of linguistics. And although this paradigm did not deal with language learning, the term "production" was considered one of its main features, as the creative nature of language use is important in this paradigm. Here is where we look at production for the first time, because creativity calls for production, and this is the essence of the release. In addition, Chomsky argues that creativity must go hand in hand with compliance, as all kinds of work must be part of a set of rules. Here is where Swain's hypothesis can be supported, as it believes that production prompts students to consider the syntax that can be considered as a set of rules that governs a given communication framework.

we find three different theories aimed at acquiring language and these behavioral, native and interaction theories. We focus primarily on behaviorist and nativist views.

With regard to behaviorism, one learns a language by creating a sequence that has been imitated. Thus, both the input and the output can be found in this theory, as students imitate something they had previously assimilated (input). As far as native theories are concerned, in the course of language learning, the students consistently form hypotheses based on the input information. However, these hypotheses are tested in speech (output) and understanding (input).

So we can see that, according to behavioral theories, output is an imitation, which means Swain's argument about creating automatic language behavior. From the Nativist point of view, the Output Hypothesis is also supported, as speaking through students can test what they know and what they do not. Likewise both behavioral and nativist theories are in favor of the Krasen Input Hypothesis as both are explicitly believed that production is a natural consequence of the input. So at this point we can see how the two seemingly opposing hypotheses are complementing and not denying each other's validity.

As far as interaction theories are concerned, they consider the acquisition of language, the mental process of the learner and the linguistic environment (Arzamendi, Palacios and Ball, 2012, p. 39). Here you will find the input and the output, working together. Interaction theories believe in interaction as the main reasons for language acquisition. Thus, it is a clear example of the validity of both input and output hypotheses

. The importance of interaction due to the reasons for language learning Pica, Young and Doughty (1987) also underpin a certain point that Krashen's understandable input is less effective than interaction, which includes not only input but output as well.

In the same direction, Ellis (1985) defined the "optimal learning environment", with more output and input. He talked about the importance of exposing large amounts of revenue to Krasen's input hypothesis, but also emphasized the importance of emission. This is done by pointing out that students should consider L2 communication as useful (meaningful communication, as Swain put it). In addition, the authors emphasize the possibility of an unscrupulous practice of experimentation. In this latest statement, not only Swain's view of output is a tool for testing the language hypothesis, but also Krashen's importance for the low-affective filter, since inhibition obviously limits the learner's language performance. In this way, not only Swain and Krasen's hypotheses are similar to each other, but they begin to demand each other in order to flawlessly exist. Within the sociolinguistic models of SLA, it clearly addresses the input, especially within the nativeity model (Andersen, 1979). This model emphasizes the importance of input and how students internalize L2. According to this model, learners communicate in two ways with input, adjust inputs to L2 view, and create an internal linguistic system to match the input to gain L2 form properties. This theory is clearly consistent with the significance that Krasen makes of the language for the acquisition of language.

If we move to the SLA language model, we find that Hatch (1978) addresses both the inputs and the outputs in the importance of his discourse theory. Hatch sites mean that negotiation is at the center of your theory. In this way input is important because L2 advanced speakers or native speakers terminate speech when an L2 student is called. Thus the input becomes understandable for the learner, which is a key Krashen hypothesis. However, this theory also states that the natural way in which language is taught is the result of learning conversations. And in that sense, output will be important as it is important to have a conversation that involves linguistic production as important as understanding. In addition, and according to this SLA theory, the learner uses vertical structures to form sentences, which means that from the previous discourse takes language blocks to which his own elements are added. Thus, students experiment and test their hypothesis on the language, which according to Swain (1985, 1993) is one of the ways that output leads to SLA.

And so we get to Swain Output Hypothesis, a language model, and Krashen's input hypothesis, which is the cognitive model of SLA. Although one of the most important items reject the other, we have seen that they are complementary to each other. Harmonizing Outcome of Krasen's Input and Swain's Output Views

It is time to cope with this task, reconciling Swain and Krashen's views. To do this, both hypotheses should be appropriate but not complete.

The input hypothesis states that in L2 the fluency of speech or writing will naturally come to pass after the students have achieved sufficient competence through the understandable input (Wang and Castro, 2010). Studies by Tanaka (1991) and Yamakazi (1991) in Wang and Castro (2010) show that although the input greatly facilitates the acquisition of vocabulary in the target language, it does not address the acquisition of many syntactic structures. Therefore, understandable input is important but not sufficient to achieve SLA. This output hypothesis provides for the error. According to Swain (1993), language preparation would force students to recognize what they only know or know only what is called "gap" that students can say and what they want to say. In your opinion, if you encounter such a gap, students can respond in three different ways. One is ignoring it. The other is to seek or build a response in their own language knowledge; and the latter is to determine what the difference is and then pay attention to the relevant input that can satisfy this lack of knowledge. This third response creates the link between the input and output that prefers the SLA. As a result, learners are more likely to increase their inbound processing capabilities because their performance has placed the need to focus on their performance. (Swain, 1993)

We now see how Swain Output Hypothesis accepts input as an important part of SLA, while Krashen's view is slightly skewed. The Understandable Results (19459005) (19459005) (1998), which assesses the effectiveness of understandable power (CO), Krashen criticizes CO as a means of acquiring L2. Among the other questions or deficiencies of the Swain hypothesis, he claims to be forced to speak as part of the CO, leading to discomfort, that is to the students' anxiety. According to Young (1990) and Laughrin-Sacco (1992), Krashen (1998) states that foreign language students are talking about the highest anxiety activity. In addition, it states what Price (1991) has stated that if it is not able to communicate effectively, it leads to many frustrations.

These two arguments clearly support the Krashen Affective Filter Hypothesis. Anxiety and frustration can cause low motivation and low self-confidence, which causes high-affective filters on the part of the student, and thus low input can occur.

Although Krasen has made good arguments for CO, he has fewer benefits than it seems to be, as part of the monitor hypothesis, also in the Monitor Model. According to Krashen (1985), "monitor" is an internal editing tool that works even before or after the output. To this end, the learner needs to know the correct speech rules. Despite not supporting the research evidence of the hypothesis, if we make Krashen literally, we understand what we are editing or correcting what we do before or afterwards. In this way, if we do it before, we use internal knowledge to modify something that we are preparing; If we do this, we fix a bug that basically tries to prove a false hypothesis. After we do this, we can arrange our minds to fix it, or just concentrate on what knowledge we need to create a proper hypothesis. Here are the two benefits of the performance mentioned by Swain: we examine the hypothesis and recognize what we do not know, but we need it. Now it is clear that both hypotheses are neither bad nor complete. In any case they complement each other in order to create a more integrated hypothesis. As a final conclusion, we may suggest some guidelines to put an end to this disturbing disagreement.

Firstly, a certain amount of money is needed before any output is prepared before it can be understood. This is much more important for young learners than adults, as the latter can better control emotional issues. Young learners, though they lack sufficient language skills to reflect their own outcomes, may be worried by being forced to talk, if not cautiously.

Secondly, the input or output may vary depending on the type of language you want to access. If the focus is on syntax, we use output strategies that allow greater reflection and self-correction. However, if we are working on the vocabulary, the input approach is likely to be more effective.

Finally, students should use feedback that they can get from other speakers in the language, and that's just the language of Production. Responses from other speakers provide students with feedback on the clarity and / or accuracy of their expressions. In a language learning environment this feedback can be derived from a teacher or other learner

If we deduct these guidelines from both Krashen and Swain's arguments, the ability to produce language is not just the result of language acquisition, as the former states, but the reason Swain He thinks.


  • Arzamendi, J., Palacios, I. and Ball, P. (ed.) (2012). Second Language Shopping . FUNIBER
  • Krasen, S.D. (1981). Acquiring Second Language and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon
  • Krasen, S.D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. Questions and Effects . New York: Longman
  • Ellis, R. (1985). Classroom development in second language. Study on classroom interaction and language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.


  • Krasen, S.D. (1982). Principles and Practice of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon
  • Krasen, S.D. (1998, June). Understandable output . System, 26 (2), 175-182. He bought the following: 11 th February 2013,
  • Swain, M. (1993, October). Output hypothesis: only speech and writing is not enough . Canadian Modern Language Review, 50 (1), 158-164 (19659035) Wang, Q. and Castro, C.D. (2010, June). Curricular interaction and language output . English Language Teaching, 3 (2), 175-186.

Supported by sbobet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *