The Debate around the Role of Speaking in Language Learning

(by Jeremy Eckert, UIC-Barcelona student)

One concept I was introduced to during my MA course is the concept of Merrill Swain’s Output Hypothesis. Output here refers to language output (speaking or writing – what comes out of your mouth or your pen), contrasted with language input (listening or reading – what goes into your ears or eyes). The Output hypothesis claims that language learners acquire language more successfully when producing the language by speaking it or writing it. I’ll briefly explain the hypothesized mechanisms.

The first mechanism of acquisition manifests when the learners notice gaps in their language abilities while trying to express themselves (for example: “That is what I want to say… but this is all that I’m able to say…”), which leads them to either acquire that missing language when they receive feedback, or to seek out the missing language themselves, to use in the future.

While the learners produce output, they also simultaneously hypothesize about how the language works. (“Hmm…I’m guessing that I can add this word to the beginning of my sentence…. Oh and I forgot an important word, maybe I can substitute it with this other word and everyone will still understand me…”) This creative use of language, plus self-aware thinking (hypothesizing, testing, evaluating) helps knowledge about language turn into language acquisition.

Lastly, the third mechanism through which output leads to acquisition is when learners reflect on their output afterward in some way, through conversation with others discussing the output they just produced, or by remembering what they said/wrote, when looking back on it at a later time.

This contrasts with Krashen’s Input Hypothesis which proposes that comprehensible, and interesting input is the key to language acquisition, and output is secondary – merely the result of all the language which the learner already acquired by consuming comprehensible input through reading and listening.

Basically, the same way that researchers of human development have argued for a long time about whether it is nature or nurture which primarily shapes human development, so too the researchers of second language acquisition have been debating for a while about whether it is mostly input or output which primarily drives language acquisition. Both debates share the same underlying structure: two explanatory forces which are clearly related get treated as if only one of them can be the true explanation.

The cynic in me can’t help but wonder if scholars who argue strongly for one position over the other are less concerned with resolving the question empirically than with carving out a recognizable niche within the field. (Great for publishing!) After all, sharply defined positions are easier to defend and brand, and easier to cite than nuanced, mixed ones. On the other hand, the scholar in me understands that the human brain is incredibly complicated and difficult to study, and researchers are allowed to have different passionate opinions about how it works. Despite decades of research, there is still no instructional approach that guarantees acquisition.

Would it be a cop-out to just say “Why not both input and output?” the same way I resolve my own Nature/Nurture debate? Can we just say that acquisition comes half from input and half from output? That’s actually pretty close to what the Interaction Hypothesis proposes. The Interaction Hypothesis posits that, during interaction, learners process both input and output, while also negotiating meaning and receiving feedback, and these processes lead to acquisition.

So there you have it – a hypothesis which claims both input and output are required for language acquisition! Now the more difficult part: translating these ideas into effective teaching methods, replicable for as many classroom environments as possible.

When we’re staying within the realm of theory, it’s perfectly fine to just say “Obviously learners need both input and output. Can everyone just stop arguing now?” But when we get into the realm of practice, it’s quite important for us to figure out who is more correct, because the effectiveness of our teaching is at stake.

Let’s see what Steve Kaufmann has to say about this input/output debate. Steve Kaufmann is not an SLA researcher, but he is a highly experienced adult language learner whose views are based on decades of immersion and self-directed study rather than formal linguistic theory.

I found his video compelling. My main take away from his video was the case he made in favor of input:

“So output is important, but still… Input over output, input before output, input more than output.”

Something else I found noteworthy was how dismissive he was of Swain’s 3 mechanisms of acquisition:

“We learn from output because it enables us to identify our gaps… 2^nd of all, output has a hypothesis-testing function. […] We test whether we know the grammar. It’s kind of… the same as finding our gaps, I don’t see the difference. The third thing is a metalinguistic function. […] To me, it’s all the same.”

Kaufman seems not to be interested in actually engaging with Swain’s ideas. Instead he flattens 3 distinct cognitive mechanisms into one vague category of ‘noticing’, which makes Swain’s theory look repetitive when it isn’t. Saying Swain’s mechanisms are “all the same” is like saying perception, reasoning, and reflection are identical because they all involve ‘thinking’. It’s a form of equivocating, frankly. All due respect to Kaufmann, I think he is a prolific learner of languages, and his video makes valid points about input, backed by experience. But he seems to be already settled into a distinct view of language learning which has worked well for his own studies, and everyone else’s theories get filtered through that lens. He and many followers of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis also talk a lot about the dangers of encouraging learners to speak because speaking raises the learner’s Affective Filter (another way of saying it raises the learner’s anxiety).

This is where my view starts to differ. While valid in many cases, the claim that “speaking raises a learner’s anxiety” shouldn’t be treated as an axiom, or some kind of universal natural law.

Personally, I think I lean towards Swain’s Output Hypothesis because of my own background as a learner of Arabic. I didn’t like seeking out comprehensible texts and audios (except Arabic music, which I still love). The type of passive, sustained input that Kaufmann prefers to learn from was (and still is) exactly what raised MY learning anxiety. I found the idea of seeking out and consuming such input to be a daunting task, and it requires a lot of patience and motivation to seek out appropriate texts at a beginner/intermediate levels, especially back in the year 2010 for Arabic. And even when I was able to find some resources, sitting through long stretches of language I didn’t fully understand made me impatient and unmotivated. Passive exposure demanded an attention span I didn’t feel I had, and as soon as any confusion started to accumulate, my motivation dropped.

In fact, to this day, listening to texts or watching movies is my least favorite way to learn a language. How do I instead seek out comprehensible input? In college, I did so by finding Saudi language partners at my university for conversations! In other words – producing OUTPUT (speaking with Arabic native speakers) was my way of receiving INPUT. It can be very effective, because in a conversation, the interlocuter gives you input in short bursts, requiring a low attention span, and the interlocuter can adapt to your level by simplifying their language on the spot when you don’t understand, or even sometimes attempting to translate into their limited English.

That’s why I don’t always pay deference to the supposed axiom that speaking raises anxiety more than listening or reading. For some learners, maybe. But clearly not for all. In my case, extended listening raised my affective filter far more than conversation ever did. Interaction gave me input that fit my level and attention span. From that perspective, Swain’s argument doesn’t compete with input-based theories—it connects how input actually gets processed for certain learners.

So when Kaufmann says “input before output” or “input more than output,” I don’t think he’s wrong. But I also don’t think that this hierarchy is universal. Sometimes output itself is the path to input. Sometimes speaking is not the stressful part—long stretches of listening, reading, or watching are.

SOURCES:

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.

Luo, Z. (2024). A review of Krashen’s input theory. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 26, 130–135. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378700427_A_Review_of_Krashen%27s_Input_Theory

Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42014.x