Assignment - SLA

SUBJECT RESIT:
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
GENERAL INFORMATION:
This assignment has to fulfil the following conditions:
- Length: between 5 and 6 pages (without including cover, index or appendices if
there are any-)
- Type of font: Arial or Times New Roman
- !i"e: 11
- Line height: 1.5
- #lignment: Js!i"ied
The assignment has to be done in this $ord document and has to fulfil the rules of
presentation and edition, as for %uotes and bibliographical references which are
detailed in the !tudy &uide
#lso, it has to be submitted following the procedure specified in the #!d$ Gide
!ending it to the tutor's e-mail is not permitted
(n addition to this, it is very important to read the assessmen! %ri!eria, which can be
found in the #!d$ Gide
The assignment mar) is 1&&' of the final mar), but the participation in the a%!i(i!ies
performed during the tutorials can improve this mar)
1

Assignment - SLA

Assignment:
According to Swain,
...producing the target language may be the trigger that forces the
learner to pay attention to the means of expression needed in order
to successfully convey his or her own intended meaning.
(Swain 1985: 249)
In Swain's view, learners need not only inpt, !t otpt: t"ey need to use
langage in order to learn it# $ras"en, "owever, as recently as 2%%9, stated
t"at:
&esearc" done over t"e last t"ree decades "as s"own t"at we ac'ire
langage !y nderstanding w"at we "ear and read# ("e a!ility to
prodce langage is t"e reslt o) langage ac'isition, not t"e case#

*orcing stdents to spea+ ,nglis" will not i-prove t"eir a!ility to
spea+ ,nglis"# ($orea (i-es, 2%%9)#
Is it possible to reconcile these to see!in"l# opposite $ies %s
to h%t constit&tes secon' l%n"&%"e %c(&isition or )le%rnin"*+ %s
S%in p&ts it, Or 'o the to $ies represent to e-tre!es o.
both theor# %n' pr%ctice,/
Guidelines: To answer this question in essay form, you will need to refer to
alternative concepts of acquisition and learning proposed by other theorists,
judge them in relation to these two apparent extremes of input versus
output, and then try to draw some conclusions. You must ensure that both
rashen and !wain are discussed within the broader framewor" of !#$
theory, and thus demonstrate that you understand the general %eld.
2

Assignment - SLA

Important: you have to write your personal details and the subject name on the
cover (see the net page!" #he assignment that does not $ul$il these conditions
will not be corrected" %ou have to include the assignment inde below the cover"
&

Assignment - SLA

Name and surname(s): ELENA RUZ ZAFRA
Login:
Group:
Date:
INDEX
I. Introduction....................................................................................... 5
II. SLA Main Theories............................................................................ 5
a. Overview......................................................................................5
b. Krashen........................................................................................5
c. Swain...........................................................................................6
d. Other Hypothesis......................................................................... 7
III. onc!usion....................................................................................... "
I#. $e%erences....................................................................................... &
'

Assignment - SLA

I. Introduction
Second Lan'ua'e Ac(uisition )SLA* theories strive to de%ine and+or (uanti%y the processes and
,ethods throu'h which individua!s ac(uire a new !an'ua'e. -hen searchin' %or Second
Lan'ua'e Ac(uisition ,ode!s over the internet. the nu,ber o% pa'es citin' nu,erous theories
can be overwhe!,in'. /ven narrowin' the search on!y to scho!ar!y wor0 produces hundreds o%
entries. Throu'h the years. severa! theories have appeared incorporatin' current or newer
paradi',s o% !an'ua'e teachin'. unti! a yet new research or theory ca,e a!on' to dispute the
trend or at !east throw so,e doubt on its %indin's. 1ust to ,ention so,e theories2 behavioris,.
the accu!turation ,ode!. the universa! 'ra,,ar theory. the co,prehension hypothesis. the
interaction hypothesis. sociocu!tura! theory and o% course. the input and output theories. a,on'
others. a!! have at so,e point proven to be the !eadin' SLA theoretica! %ra,ewor0. on!y to be
co,p!ete!y opposed by the ne3t one.
This essay conte,p!ates two o% such theories that see, at %irst '!ance co,p!ete opposites with
irreconci!ab!e positions2 Krashen4s Input Hypothesis and Swain4s o,prehensib!e Output
Hypothesis. an !an'ua'e !earnin' app!y both theories at the sa,e ti,e. or is it a ,atter o%
choosin' one over the other5 The essay wi!! co,pare and contrast both theories. and ana!y6e
other authors4 proposa! re'ardin' these di%%erent points o% view o% !an'ua'e !earnin' to try to
co,e up with a conc!usion about the proposed (uestion2 Is it a ,atter o% output versus input. or
can both theories coe3ist in the /7L c!assroo,5 8redo,inant trends have ca!!ed SLA sti!!
inconc!usive as to what the per%ect theory ,i'ht be. There%ore it ,i'ht be ,ore probab!e that a
co,bination o% severa! theories cou!d be ,ore appropriate as there actua!!y are severa! aspects
in which both be%ore ,entioned theories in practice tend to share co,,on 'round.
II. SLA Main Theories
SLA can be divided into three ,ode! cate'ories2 Socio!in'uistic Mode!s. Lin'uistic Mode!s and
co'nitive Mode!s. Socio!in'uistic Mode!s such as Schu,ann4s Accu!turation ,ode! contend that
!earners wi!! succeed in SLA on!y to the e3tent they accu!turate into the native spea0er 'roup9
and very si,i!ar to this theory was the Acco,,odation Theory by :i!es and ;yrne. which
deter,ine ,otivation as the pri,ary deter,inant o% L< co,petence. Lin'uistic Mode!s have as
their ,ain proposa!s the =iscourse Theory by Hatch. which states that a!! the re!evant te3t
around a ,essa'e shou!d be considered to understand it c!ear!y and universa!!y. instead o%
viewin' it as a standa!one sentence. The #ariab!e>o,petence ,ode! is based on two
distinctions2 one o% which re%ers to the process o% !an'ua'e use and the product. The process o%
!an'ua'e use is to be understood in ter,s o% the distinction between !in'uistic 0now!ed'e and
the abi!ity to use this 0now!ed'e. The ?niversa! Hypothesis )?:* by ho,s0y e3p!ains how the
(

Assignment - SLA

!an'ua'e4s properties o% the tar'et !an'ua'e and the !earner4s %irst !an'ua'e in%!uence L<
!earnin'. And within the sa,e cate'ory appears Swain4s Output Thesis.
A,on' the o'nitive ,ode!s there is the Monitor Mode! by Krashen which enc!oses the Input
Hypothesis9 the In%or,ation 8rocessin' Mode! which proposes that the !earner4s capacity to
process in%or,ation is !i,ited on one hand by the nature o% the tas0. and his in%or,ation
processin' abi!ity on the other. The Mu!tidi,ensiona! Mode! co,prised o% two ,ain a3es. a
variationa! and a deve!op,enta! one. with a hierarchica!!y ordered process. And %ina!!y the
neuro%unctiona! theory which !oo0s at SLA processes throu'h two di%%erent. but interre!ated
syste,s2 ,acro behaviora! and neuro%unctiona!2 one havin' to do with the !an'ua'e %actor and
the other one concentratin' on the anato,y o% the brain. )7uniber. <@AA*.
A!! a%ore,entioned theories or ,ode!s re!ate in so,e e3tent to each other. but considerin' now
the Input and output theories presented as the basis o% the ana!ysis in a certain de'ree now ,ost
o% the sociocu!tura! theories re!ate to the Swain side. and the ,ore acade,ic ,ode!s. such as
ho,s0y can re!ate easi!y to the Krashen viewpoint in 'enera! aspects. To %urther e3p!ore this
'enera!i6ation. each viewpoint is e3a,ined be!ow.
Krashen
The input theory o% Stephen Krashen is. as stated be%ore an e3a,p!e o% a co'nitive ,ode!.
which states2 BSecond>!an'ua'e ac(uisition theory provides a very c!ear e3p!anation as to why
i,,ersion wor0s. Accordin' to current theory. we ac(uire !an'ua'e in on!y one way2 when we
understand ,essa'es in that !an'ua'e. when we receive co,prehensib!e input. )Krashen. A&"C.
p 6A*.
In re%errin' to !an'ua'e !earnin'. it is i,portant to stress that he does ,a0e a c!ear distinction
between ac(uisition and !earnin'. He states the %irst as a subconscious process >!i0e that o% a
chi!d !earnin' LA> in which the !earner is concentrated in the co,,unicative act. not in the
%or,9 and !earnin' as a conscious process in which the student active!y 'ets to 0now e!e,ents
such as 'ra,,ar ru!es and other !in'uistic e!e,ents. Krashen stresses the %act that ac(uisition is
,ore i,portant than !earnin'.
Krashen provided %ive hypotheses %or second !an'ua'e !earnin'2 )A* the ac(uisition !earnin'
hypothesis9 )<* the ,onitor hypothesis9 )D* the natura! order hypothesis9 )C* the input hypothesis
and the a%%ective E %i!ter hypothesis. a!! o% which provide insi'ht to the ac(uisition+!earnin'
theory. previous!y ,entioned. Krashen considered the Input hypothesis the ,ost i,portant one
in re!ation to the topic. as the one that provides the answer to the (uestion Bhow does one
ac(uire a !an'ua'e5 Accordin' to this hypothesis. the ac(uirers have to receive co,prehensib!e
input s!i'ht!y above their abi!ity to cha!!en'e their co,petence !eve!. He stresses the %act that
the re!evant %actor here is ac(uisition. not !earnin'. and there%ore the %ocus shou!d not be
stressed on ,ore structured 'ra,,ar or !earnin' activities. but on ac(uisition> type tas0s.
BThe input hypothesis ,a0es the %o!!owin' c!ai,2 a necessary )but not su%%icient* condition to
,ove %ro, sta'e i F A is that the ac(uirer understand input that contains iF A. where understand
,eans that the ac(uirer is %ocused on the ,eanin' and not the %or, o% the ,essa'e )Krashen.
A&"<2 <A*.
His input hypothesis is based on the %act that the ac(uisition is best when the input provided has
the %o!!owin' characteristics2 it is co,prehensib!e. interestin' or re!evant to the ac(uirer. not
'ra,,atica!!y se(uenced and provided in su%%icient (uantity. )Krashen. A&"<2 A<"*. addin' a!so
the !an'ua'e !eve! shou!d be a !itt!e beyond the student4s co,petence to be cha!!en'in' enou'h.
Krashen4s sca%%o!din' theory is re%erred to as iFA.
As %urther proo% o% the e%%iciency o% this hypothesis. the e3a,p!es provided are o% teacher ta!0
)

Assignment - SLA

%ro, teacher to student. or careta0er to chi!d. or even native spea0ers to %orei'ners )%orei'n
ta!0*. in which the !an'ua'e is ,odi%ied as to pro,ote co,prehension. and as stated by
Krashen. ac(uisition. This hypothesis then is a stron' supporter o% 'ivin' !an'ua'e students an
initia! Gsi!ent periodG where they are bui!din' up ac(uired co,petence be%ore they be'in to
produce a !an'ua'e.
Krashen does state Output has a contribution to ,a0e to !an'ua'e ac(uisition. but it is indirect.
Actua! spea0in' on the part o% the !an'ua'e ac(uirer wi!! thus a%%ect the (uantity o% input peop!e
direct at hi,. which brin's us bac0 to the input hypothesis a'ain.
Swain
On the other hand. the Output Hypothesis proposed by Merri!! Swain appeared whi!e in the
A&"@4s the SLA theoretica! paradi', was that o% in%or,ation processin' theory. and under the
!i'ht o% a study o% 7rench !earners in an i,,ersion pro'ra, in anada. Her Output Hypothesis
was based on the idea that Bunderstandin' !an'ua'e and producin' !an'ua'e are di%%erent
s0i!!s. and that the second can on!y be deve!oped by pushin' the !earner to produce outputH
actua!!y to say and write thin's )as cited in 1ohnson. <@@A. p. &5*.
Swain de%ines three %unctions o% output2 A. Noticing function2 Learners encounter 'aps between
what they want to say and what they are ab!e to say and by doin' so. they notice what they do
not 0now or on!y 0now partia!!y in this !an'ua'e. <. Hypothesistesting function2 -hen
!earners say so,ethin' there is a!ways a hypothesis under!yin' e.'. about 'ra,,ar. Learners
test this hypothesis and receive %eedbac0 %ro, the person they are spea0in' to. Thus. they
reprocess their hypothesis. and in the cases where it is necessary. the correct or con%ir, it. or
produce a new one. D. Meta!inguistic function2 considers that second !an'ua'e students re%!ect
about the !an'ua'e they !earn and there%ore their output enab!es the, to appropriate their own
!in'uistic 0now!ed'e.
The output hypothesis c!ai,s that the act o% producin' !an'ua'e in any %or, )written or ora!!y*
beco,es part o% the !earnin' process. because the !earners conscious!y concentrate in the
prob!e,s they ,i'ht encounter whi!e doin' so. there%ore the re!evance o% the output theory
,i'ht re!y on the Ioticin' %unction. Swain stated that J!earners need the opportunity %or
,eanin'%u! use o% their !in'uistic resources to achieve %u!! 'ra,,atica! co,petence. and that
production ,ay encoura'e !earners to ,ove %ro, se,antic )top>down* to syntactic )botto,>up*
processin'. %orcin' !earners to pay attention to the ,eans o% e3pression )Swain. A&"5*.
d. "ther Hypothesis
So,e authors have critici6ed Krashen4s Input Hypothesis. statin' it was a si,p!i%ied
e3p!anation o% a very co,p!e3 process. and e3tensive!y doubted his ac(uirin' versus !earnin'
concepts. McLau'h!in )A&"7* is one o% the stron'est contenders who stated that without
dis,issin' the i,portance o% co,prehensib!e input. it cannot be considered enou'h %or a
co,p!ete !earnin' process. Swain4s theory on the other hand. did not
Krashen4s input hypothesis. and Swain4s output hypothesis ho!d di%%erent viewpoints on the
ro!es o% input and output in SLA. These see,in'!y irreconci!ab!e di%%erences ,i'ht be answered
app!yin' #y'ots0y4s sociocu!tura! theory which c!ai,s hi'her ,enta! %unctionin' is constructed
in a socia!. cu!tura!. historica! and institutiona! conte3t. This conte3t is a web woven by socia!
interactions a dia!ectic unity o% input and output. There%ore. accordin' to #y'ots0y s approach
to the understandin' o% !earnin' .the interactions between input and output 'ive rise to second
!an'ua'e deve!op,ent. He states that durin' the process o% !earnin'. input is o%ten shaped by
*

Assignment - SLA

output. Input ,ay be si,p!i%ied i% ,ista0es arise. or ,i'ht be esca!ated i% they se!do, occur. In
the sa,e way. output is in%!uenced by input. when the !earner is 'uided by instructions )Min.
<@@6. p.&@*.
Another way to reconci!e these two hypotheses is throu'h Bthe Interaction Hypothesis. This
hypothesis states that when the !earner interacts with other !earners or the teacher. he+she
receives input and produces output. This hypothesis is attributed to Michae! H. Lon'. who
a%%ir,s that a !an'ua'e cannot be ac(uired without co,prehension and interna!i6ation o% the
tar'et !an'ua'e )Lon'. A&"5*. The interaction hypothesis a'rees with Krashen4s co,prehensib!e
input. but %ocus on the (uestion o% how input cou!d be ,ade co,prehensib!e
;oth #y'ots0y and Lon'4s hypothesis i,p!y the concept o% Bne'otiation o% ,eanin'. As
de%ined by /!!is. ne'otiation o% ,eanin' is the interaction o% spea0ers when ,isunderstandin's
appear. !ari%ication re(uests. con%ir,ation chec0s. and co,prehension chec0s are so,e o%
these strate'ies. %or Bthese %eatures o% ne'otiation portray a process in which a !istener re(uests
,essa'e c!ari%ication and con%ir,ation and a spea0er %o!!ows up these re(uests. o%ten throu'h
repeatin'. e!aboratin'. or si,p!i%yin' the ori'ina! ,essa'e )8ica. A&&C. p. C&D*. Ie'otiation o%
,eanin' tri''ers interactiona! adKust,ents by the spea0er with hi'her capabi!ities and %aci!itates
ac(uisition because it connects input. !earner capacities and output.
III. #onc!usion
Lan'ua'e ac(uisition is a very co,p!e3 process in which severa! aspects are invo!ved.
The interactions between !earners and teachers constitute the ,aKor %or, o% socia! interaction in
a c!assroo, situation. This creates the need %or the !an'ua'e teacher to provide (ua!ity
interaction activities. and to ba!ance the !an'ua'e input and output activities to %u!%i!! the
purpose o% interaction per se. 7eedbac0 beco,es essentia!. and the output shou!d be 'uided or
,onitored by the teachers. and at the sa,e ti,e create opportunities and encoura'e student
interaction a,on' each other as we!!.
+

Assignment - SLA

I$. %eferences
7arhady. H. )n+d*. On the 8!ausibi!ity o% Second Lan'ua'e Ac(uisition Mode!s. ?niversity o%
Los An'e!es. $etrieved October <"
th
. <@AA %ro,
http2++www.aua.a,+acade,ics+dep+h%Lpub!ications+<M<@OnM<@theM<@8!ausibi!ityM<@o%M<@S
LAM<@Mode!s.pd%
7uniber. )<@AA*.Second Lan'ua'e Ac(uisition Mode!s2 ritica! $eview. 8 C&>6D.
Krashen. S. )A&"<*. 8rincip!es and 8ractice in Second Lan'ua'e Ac(uisition. O3%ord2
8er'a,on. $etrieved %ro,
http2++sd0rashen.co,+8rincip!esLandL8ractice+8rincip!esLandL8ractice.pd%
Krashen. S. )A&&C*. GThe Input Hypothesis and Its $iva!sG. I,p!icit and /3p!icit Learnin' o%
Lan'ua'es. pp.C5>77. London2 Acade,ic 8ress
Ku,aravadive!u. ;.. )<@@6*. ?nderstandin' Lan'ua'e Teachin' > 7ro, Method to 8ost,ethod.
Lawrence /r!bau, Associates. Inc.. 8ub!ishers. Iew 1ersey. )pp 55>AAD*
Li'htbown. 8. and Spada. I. )A&&"*. How Lan'ua'es are Learned. O3%ord ?niversity 8ress2
Iew Nor0
Lon'. M. H. )A&"5*. Input and second !an'ua'e ac(uisition theory. Input in second !an'ua'e
ac(uisition )pp. D77>D&D*. Iewbury.
Min. :. )<@@6*. #y'ots0y4s Sociocu!tura! Theory and the $o!e o% Input and Output in Second
Lan'ua'e Ac(uisition. -uhan ?niversity. e!ea 1ourna!. #o! <&. no.C )p."7>&<*
,

Assignment - SLA

8ica. T. )A&&C*. $esearch on ne'otiation2 -hat does it revea! about second>!an'ua'e !earnin'
conditions. processes. and outco,es5 Lan'ua'e Learnin'. CC)D*. C&D>5<7
Swain. M. )A&"5* o,,unicative co,petence2 So,e ro!es o% co,prehensib!e input and
co,prehensib!e output in its deve!op,ent. In :ass. S. and Madden. . )/ds.*. Input in Second
Lan'ua'e Ac(uisition. pp. <D5><56. Iew Nor02 Iewbury House
Swain. M. and Lap0in. S. )A&&5. 8rob!e,s in output and the co'nitive processes they 'enerate.
step towards second !an'ua'e !earnin'. App!ied Lin'uistics A62 D7A>D&A. p. D7< %.
1-