Revisiting Input and Output Hypotheses in Second Language Learning

Victor A Birkner

doi:10.20849/aes.v1i1.18

Abstract

This article discusses the impact that both input and output hypotheses have on second language learning. For decades, there have been opposing ideas in this regard. Several studies were consulted to have a clearer view of which approach is more recommendable for people involved in language teaching. For several years teachers of second language strongly believed that learning a new language depended on the exposition of learners to the target language. For effective learning, the exposition should be higher than the students’ level but comprehensible enough for them to understand. However, this hypothesis was rejected when a new study revealed that the exposition was not enough. Students need to use the language they have learnt. These new ideas emerged from the output hypothesis that had a significant impact on the field of language teaching. The article concludes that both approaches can be used complementarily although more study is still needed. atology and expand its studies from macro-studies to micro-studies.<p> </p>

Highlights

For a long time teaching second languages has always tried to replicate the different factors that play major roles in first language acquisition without being completely successful
The studies reveal that language acquisition is different from second language acquisition
Krashen claims that learners acquire a second language if they are exposed to comprehensible input

Summary

Introduction

For a long time teaching second languages has always tried to replicate the different factors that play major roles in first language acquisition without being completely successful. When communication among people of different countries and cultures became paramount, such as in wartime, new methods and approaches to teaching languages appeared. Some of them, such as Audiolingualism - which was based on a convincing theory of learning (Behaviorism) worked very well for quite some time (some drill techniques are still in use today) but due to the fact that many questions about language learning remained unanswered, linguists went beyond trying to find better principles and theories that provided a more satisfactory explanation to the how languages are learned providing the right techniques, strategies and conditions for a successful replication of this process. Many years have passed since the first theories were posited and there are still disagreements on what hypotheses better explain the learning of a second language

Results

Discussion

Conclusion