Swain vs Krashen

Swain vs. Krashen OUTPUT VS COMPREHENSIVE INPUT THEORIES

Name and surname(s): Monica Claudia Macchiavello Login: ECFPMTFL781081 Group:30 Date:10/30/2011

1

SWAIN VS KRASHEN – OUTPUT VS COMPREHENSIVE INPUT THEORIES

INDEX I.

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 2

II.

SLA Main Theories…………………………………………………………………. 2 a. Overview…………………………………………………………………………..3 b. Krashen……………………………………………………………………….……3 c. Swain……………………………………………………………………………….4 d. Other Hypothesis………………………………………………….…………… 5

III.

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………… 6

IV.

References…………………………………………………………………………… 7

2

SWAIN VS KRASHEN – OUTPUT VS COMPREHENSIVE INPUT THEORIES Introduction Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theories strive to define and/or quantify the processes and methods through which individuals acquire a new language. When searching for Second Language Acquisition models over the internet, the number of pages citing numerous theories can be overwhelming. Even narrowing the search only to scholarly work produces hundreds of entries. Through the years, several theories have appeared incorporating current or newer paradigms of language teaching, until a yet new research or theory came along to dispute the trend or at least throw some doubt on its findings. Just to mention some theories: behaviorism, the acculturation model, the universal grammar theory, the comprehension hypothesis, the interaction hypothesis, sociocultural theory and of course, the input and output theories, among others, all have at some point proven to be the leading SLA theoretical framework, only to be completely opposed by the next one. This essay contemplates two of such theories that seem at first glance complete opposites

with

irreconcilable

positions:

Krashen’s

Input

Hypothesis

and

Swain’s

Comprehensible Output Hypothesis. Can language learning apply both theories at the same time, or is it a matter of choosing one over the other? The essay will compare and contrast both theories, and analyze other authors’ proposal regarding these different points of view of language learning to try to come up with a conclusion about the proposed question: Is it a matter of output versus input, or can both theories coexist in the EFL classroom? Predominant trends have called SLA still inconclusive as to what the perfect theory might be. Therefore it might be more probable that a combination of several theories could be more appropriate as there actually are several aspects in which both before mentioned theories in practice tend to share common ground. SLA Main Theories SLA can be divided into three model categories: Sociolinguistic Models, Linguistic Models and cognitive Models. Sociolinguistic Models such as Schumann’s Acculturation model contend that learners will succeed in SLA only to the extent they acculturate into the native speaker group; and very similar to this theory was the Accommodation Theory by Giles and Byrne, which determine motivation as the primary determinant of L2 competence.

3

Linguistic Models have as their main proposals the Discourse Theory by Hatch, which states that all the relevant text around a message should be considered to understand it clearly and universally, instead of viewing it as a standalone sentence. The Variable-Competence model is based on two distinctions: one of which refers to the process of language use and the product. The process of language use is to be understood in terms of the distinction between linguistic knowledge and the ability to use this knowledge. The Universal Hypothesis (UG) by Chomsky explains how the language’s properties of the target language and the learner’s first language influence L2 learning. And within the same category appears Swain’s Output Thesis. Among the Cognitive models there is the Monitor Model by Krashen which encloses the Input Hypothesis; the Information Processing Model which proposes that the learner’s capacity to process information is limited on one hand by the nature of the task, and his information processing ability on the other. The Multidimensional Model comprised of two main axes, a variational and a developmental one, with a hierarchically ordered process. And finally the neurofunctional theory which looks at SLA processes through two different, but interrelated systems: macro behavioral and neurofunctional: one having to do with the language factor and the other one concentrating on the anatomy of the brain. (Funiber, 2011). All aforementioned theories or models relate in some extent to each other, but considering now the Input and output theories presented as the basis of the analysis in a certain degree now most of the sociocultural theories relate to the Swain side, and the more academic models, such as Chomsky can relate easily to the Krashen viewpoint in general aspects. To further explore this generalization, each viewpoint is examined below. Krashen The input theory of Stephen Krashen is, as stated before an example of a cognitive model, which states: ―Second-language acquisition theory provides a very clear explanation as to why immersion works. According to current theory, we acquire language in only one way: when we understand messages in that language, when we receive comprehensible input.‖ (Krashen, 1984, p 61). In referring to language learning, it is important to stress that he does make a clear distinction between acquisition and learning. He states the first as a subconscious process -like that of a child learning L1- in which the learner is concentrated in the communicative act, not in the form; and learning as a conscious process in which the student actively gets to know 4

elements such as grammar rules and other linguistic elements. Krashen stresses the fact that acquisition is more important than learning. Krashen provided five hypotheses for second language learning: (1) the acquisition learning hypothesis; (2) the monitor hypothesis; (3) the natural order hypothesis; (4) the input hypothesis and the affective – filter hypothesis, all of which provide insight to the acquisition/learning theory, previously mentioned. Krashen considered the Input hypothesis the most important one in relation to the topic, as the one that provides the answer to the question ―how does one acquire a language?‖ According to this hypothesis, the acquirers have to receive comprehensible input slightly above their ability to challenge their competence level. He stresses the fact that the relevant factor here is acquisition, not learning, and therefore the focus should not be stressed on more structured grammar or learning activities, but on acquisitiontype tasks. ―The input hypothesis makes the following claim: a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to move from stage i + 1 is that the acquirer understand input that contains i+ 1, where understand means that the acquirer is focused on the meaning and not the form of the message‖ (Krashen, 1982: 21). His input hypothesis is based on the fact that the acquisition is best when the input provided has the following characteristics: it is comprehensible, interesting or relevant to the acquirer, not grammatically sequenced and provided in sufficient quantity. (Krashen, 1982: 128), adding also the language level should be a little beyond the student’s competence to be challenging enough. Krashen’s scaffolding theory is referred to as i+1. As further proof of the efficiency of this hypothesis, the examples provided are of teacher talk from teacher to student, or caretaker to child, or even native speakers to foreigners (foreign talk), in which the language is modified as to promote comprehension, and as stated by Krashen, acquisition. This hypothesis then is a strong supporter of giving language students an initial "silent period" where they are building up acquired competence before they begin to produce a language. Krashen does state Output has a contribution to make to language acquisition, but it is indirect. Actual speaking on the part of the language acquirer will thus affect the quantity of input people direct at him, which brings us back to the input hypothesis again.

5

Swain On the other hand, the Output Hypothesis proposed by Merrill Swain appeared while in the 1980’s the SLA theoretical paradigm was that of information processing theory, and under the light of a study of French learners in an immersion program in Canada. Her Output Hypothesis was based on the idea that ―understanding language and producing language are different skills, and that the second can only be developed by pushing the learner to produce output—actually to say and write things‖ (as cited in Johnson, 2001, p. 95). Swain defines three functions of output: 1. Noticing function: Learners encounter gaps between what they want to say and what they are able to say and by doing so, they notice what they do not know or only know partially in this language. 2. Hypothesis-testing function: When learners say something there is always a hypothesis underlying e.g. about grammar. Learners test this hypothesis and receive feedback from the person they are speaking to. Thus, they reprocess their hypothesis, and in the cases where it is necessary, the correct or confirm it, or produce a new one. 3. Metalinguistic function: considers that second language students reflect about the language they learn and therefore their output enables them to appropriate their own linguistic knowledge. The output hypothesis claims that the act of producing language in any form (written or orally) becomes part of the learning process, because the learners consciously concentrate in the problems they might encounter while doing so, therefore the relevance of the output theory might rely on the Noticing function. Swain stated that “learners need the opportunity for meaningful use of their linguistic resources to achieve full grammatical competence, and that production may encourage learners to move from semantic (top-down) to syntactic (bottom-up) processing, forcing learners to pay attention to the means of expression‖ (Swain, 1985). Other Hypothesis Some authors have criticized Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, stating it was a simplified explanation of a very complex process, and extensively doubted his acquiring versus learning concepts. McLaughlin (1987) is one of the strongest contenders who stated that without dismissing the importance of comprehensible input, it cannot be considered enough for a complete learning process. Swain’s theory on the other hand, did not Krashen’s input hypothesis, and Swain’s output hypothesis hold different viewpoints on the roles of input and output in SLA. These seemingly irreconcilable differences might be 6

answered applying Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory which claims higher mental functioning is constructed in a social, cultural, historical and institutional context. This context is a web woven by social interactions a dialectic unity of input and output. Therefore, according to Vygotsky s approach to the understanding of learning ，the interactions between input and output give rise to second language development. He states that during the process of learning, input is often shaped by output. Input may be simplified if mistakes arise, or might be escalated if they seldom occur. In the same way, output is influenced by input, when the learner is guided by instructions (Min, 2006, p.90). Another way to reconcile these two hypotheses is through ―the Interaction Hypothesis.‖ This hypothesis states that when the learner interacts with other learners or the teacher, he/she receives input and produces output. This hypothesis is attributed to Michael H. Long, who affirms that a language cannot be acquired without comprehension and internalization of the target

language

(Long,

1985).

The

interaction

hypothesis

agrees

with

Krashen’s

comprehensible input, but focus on the question of how input could be made comprehensible Both Vygotsky and Long’s hypothesis imply the concept of ―negotiation of meaning.‖ As defined by Ellis, negotiation of meaning is the interaction of speakers when misunderstandings appear. Clarification requests, confirmation checks, and comprehension checks are some of these strategies, for ―these features of negotiation portray a process in which a listener requests message clarification and confirmation and a speaker follows up these requests, often through repeating, elaborating, or simplifying the original message‖ (Pica, 1994, p. 493). Negotiation of meaning triggers interactional adjustments by the speaker with higher capabilities and facilitates acquisition because it connects input, learner capacities and output. Conclusion Language acquisition is a very complex process in which several aspects are involved. The interactions between learners and teachers constitute the major form of social interaction in a classroom situation. This creates the need for the language teacher to provide quality interaction activities, and to balance the language input and output activities to fulfill the purpose of interaction per se. Feedback becomes essential, and the output should be guided or monitored by the teachers, and at the same time create opportunities and encourage student interaction among each other as well.

7

References Farhady, H. (n/d). On the Plausibility of Second Language Acquisition Models. University of Los Angeles. Retrieved October 28th, 2011 from http://www.aua.am/academics/dep/hf_publications/2%20On%20the%20Plausibility%20of%20S LA%20Models.pdf Funiber, (2011).Second Language Acquisition Models: Critical Review. P 49-63. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Retrieved from http://sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/Principles_and_Practice.pdf Krashen, S. (1994). "The Input Hypothesis and Its Rivals". Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, pp.45-77. London: Academic Press Kumaravadivelu, B., (2006). Understanding Language Teaching - From Method to Postmethod. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. New Jersey. (pp 55-113) Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (1998). How Languages are Learned. Oxford University Press: New York Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Newbury. Min, G. (2006). Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory and the Role of Input and Output in Second Language Acquisition. Wuhan University. Celea Journal. Vol 29. no.4 (p.87-92) Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning. 44(3), 493-527 Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 235-256. New York: Newbury House Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate. step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16: 371-391, p. 372 f.

8