When I think about language learning, I think about my experience as an actor and find many similarities. An actor approaches a role by “silently” learning everything they can about the character (input). Actors read, listen and research the live counterparts they will attempt to emulate: a doctor, an athlete, a transvestite (a true experience!) etc. But, it isn’t until they dive into being the part, on stage or on screen (output), when they truly start to understand the character because they start "living" like a doctor, an athlete, or a transvestite. And, if they are not being true to the character, they will get feedback from the director or fellow actors and will need to make changes to improve the “readability” of the character. That is when the actor truly understands what it feels like to be the part and understands the motivation behind the character’s choices and decisions. When an actor “connects” with their character, the audience can feel and sympathize with the character and can understand and, ultimately, enjoy the performance. I think that language learning is similar in many respects. While learning Spanish in Puerto Rico, I ultimately wanted to be understood and accepted by the Spanish community I lived in, and, at the end of the day, I just wanted my teachers, friends, and family to enjoy my “output.”
A big proponent of the input theory of language learning is Stephen Krashen. I like the academic yet easily accessible way Krashen puts forth his theories. It is something I have been drawn to ever since being introduced to his work several years ago while completing my BA in teaching. His style is clear and readable, and this is probably some of the reasons he has had such an enormous impact in the field of SLA. It may also be some of the reasons his theories have been so highly contested by other researchers.
Krashen’s input hypothesis is pretty straight forward: successful acquisition occurs when the language learner receives a massive amount of “comprehensible input” which is enough for him/her to learn the target language. However, if the language learner does not successfully learn the target language after having received said massive amounts of comprehensible input, it might be due to him/her possessing “barriers” in the form of stress, anxiety, lack of motivation, among others, that prevent him/her from benefiting from said input.
You can see the input hypothesis in action in ESL classrooms all over the world and in almost every one of my lessons. I incorporate experiences and activities that will help my students internalize and understand the target language without the need to produce it. My students read passages silently then answer comprehension questions. I give them reading and writing assignments to do at home. I allow them to listen without speaking. But, is this enough for them to gain a full command of English? Many researchers say it is not, and I have to agree. Input and Output are both important in successful language acquisition.
Merrill Swain’s output hypothesis got the ball rolling in challenging Krashen’s input theory. Swain believed that output was just as important as input in SLA. For her, output not only served to perfect or “enhance” fluency, but also played a crucial role in cognitive learning, therefore, an integral part of the language acquisition process. I agree with Swain mostly because I’ve experienced her hypothesis first-hand while learning Spanish as a second language. I learned Spanish mainly through receiving a lot of comprehensible input by my parents, teachers and friends in Puerto Rico. As I developed my Spanish reading and writing skills I understood more about how the language worked and how to produce it. In the beginning, and for a long while, my output was minimal. I listened more and spoke less, mainly due to fear of sounding ridiculous. Yet, it wasn’t until I started producing output that I started to truly become fully functional in Spanish. When I started communicating in Spanish, I noticed that I had to “modify” my output in order to be understood. According to Swain, I was “forced” to use a more “syntactic processing mode” than what would occur in a mere comprehension or input mode.
And so, input and output are both very important in helping language learners gain proficiency in a second language because both offer opportunities for learners to go through cognitive processes that not only improve an understanding of the language, but also help learners find correct ways, mentally, to physically produce the language in order to be completely understood, and thus, become fully functional.
