The Influence of Input hypothesis and Output Hypothesis on SLA
By Huang Ling
As we Know, SLA has pulled itself up to at a height we've never seen as with the closer communication in the international community. So how to promote the development of SLA is of great importance. Still now, the two scholars' theories are named as the milestones in this field---Krashen's "input hypothesis" and Swain's "Output Hypothesis". These two theories are both inspired by the famous Canadian Immersion Program and they underline different aspects in the process of SLA. But we can find some connections between them.
Last century, we could hardly imagine how bare in the SLA research field. In the 1980s, we just fixed our eyes on the products of SLA and took the input of language for granted. People seldom pay attention to the "input". Under this case, Stephen Krashen conducted lots of researches and came up with new theories about SLA including five hypothesis: " the Acquisition Learning Hypothesis" "the Natural Order Hypothesis" "the Monitor Hypothesis" "the Input Hypothesis" and "the Affection Filter Hypothesis".One of the most influential was the fourth, which was also called "comprehensive input hypothesis" .It was characterized by "comprehensive" and "Interesting and relevant" and "not grammatical sequenced" and "i＋1".That is to say, the selected materials provided for the learners should not be too complex that would distract their attention into fixing the form and structure of language; the material should be so interesting that it will let the learners be free from the pressure atmosphere of learning; the learner can naturally master the utility of language without specially grammatical training; the materials should match the learners' level but it should exceed the learners' existing cognitive level a bit.
Once this theory was come up, it arouse the educators new thoughts about SLA and was widely accepted and gradully adopted into their teaching. They realized the input was an essential circle of SLA and they attached more importance to the unconsciously learning. They fully digested Krashen's core thoughts: it was the best way of learning second language to let the learners immerse into the second language environment and let them take in enough comprehensive materials. Indeed, the theory contributed a lot to the learners' progress in listening and reading abilities. However, the successive researchers found, compared with the native speakers, these learners were far away from them in utterance and writing. Hence, a new problem came into being: in which way could the SLA be promoted comprehensibly?
The current American linguist Swain added up to it by put forward the " Comprehensive Output Hypothesis". He acknowledged the "input had the function of language information internalization but it couldn't make the language learners naturally use the language, so output could be an effective way to learn second language. Guided by this conception, he found three functions of the output. They are noticing function, hypothesis testing function and metalinguistic function. Notice the gap between the learners and the native speakers by expressing themselves out. Test whether they've made some mistakes in the course of communication.Recall whether the sentences and language use are consistence with the fixed expression pattern of source language. Such are the details of the tree functions.According to Swain's theory, comprehensive output could advance the accuracy and fluency of language use because the learners could realize their mistakes and then correct it guided by the teachers. Thanks to the feedback , the learners learned some new language .In this sense, output was more a way of learning than an approach to expressing oneself. Obviously , we can see conscious learning is highlighted by Swain. Nowadays, Swain's Comprehensive Output Hypothesis still has great influence on the SLA teaching, particularly in
speech program. So Like we Chinese, the forms of presentation and debating are often adopted in the class by the oral English teachers.
Comparing Krashen's Input Hypothesis and Swain's Output Hypothesis, we can see more clearly about the differences of these two theories. As for learning approach, Krasken emphasizes the unconscious acquisition by contacting enormous language materials while Swain sings highly of the conscious learning by conversations and debating and so on; as for function, input leads to the internalization of language but output is of testing function, which leads to different effects in the SLA. Overemphasis the input results in uncertainty about what the learners have really taken in and results in such kind of learners lack of systematical knowledge of the source language. However, Swain's output hypothesis avoids referring to the significance of the input, which is like building a house from the air , without the base. In light of the cognitive aspect, we know that unconscious acquisition and conscious learning are two basic ways of mastering a language. They play different roles but can cooperate well in a task. Now, in my opinion, just emphasis input and output respectively is not correct. We can not reach our final destination of SLA just through input or output alone. They are not like two parallel lines, but like the left hand and the right hand. Without enough input , output cannot go smoothly. It gives us a reminder that we should adopt conversation in the class based on the learners ' well-prepared topic materials in advance. On the contrary, enormous input cannot be regarded as the end of a language task, but it should be followed and enhanced by conversation practice. As a whole, input and output cannot be divided in the SLA.
We know, it is not reasonable to cut the ties between input and output. But it is still a problem to direct the second language teaching by properly placing the input-output theory into practice.For example, if we want to adopt "i+1"theory in teaching, we can hardly decide what kind of materials are comprehensive so as to match the learner's level . Another example is that we could not see to it whether the learners really understand the feedback by the teachers. Even so, these two theories are of great significances to second language learning. We can make sure that an environment where there are many source language speakers is helpful for SLA. So the frequent interaction with the source language can benefit to the SLA.