A discussion of output in second language acquisition

An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 80 – 88

A DISCUSSION OF OUTPUT IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Chi Do Na1
An Giang University

1

Information:
Received: 09/08/2018
Accepted: 03/12/2018
Published: 03/2019
Keywords:

Output, evidence, language
acquisition, theories

ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the issue of output which is one of the foremost
concepts in the field of Linguistics and Language Education. Output,
commonly seen as the language produced by learners, has been claimed as
such a vital element in the process of language acquisition and also a topic
of debates. Theories on output in language acquisition have been extensively
investigated and proposed over the past years. Despite such
acknowledgments of its importance, there are still controversies of whether
an individual’s acquisition of a language can be measured by the output that
he/she produces. Taking that concern as its aim, this paper briefly introduces
the second language acquisition process and then narrows its focus to output
in second language acquisition through reviewing highly recognised
research of the discipline. The purpose of the paper is to (1) provide a more
comprehensive definition of output, (2) examine its roles, and (3) challenge

whether output can be seen as an evidence of language acquisition, which
could be further implied in language education through assessing learners’
performances of the target language.

1. INTRODUCTION

have their own positions to see how acquisition
happens; therefore, it is quite problematic to
identify a comprehensive proposal on the process
of language acquisition (Saleemi, 1989). Since
acquisition of a language is a process, there is a
need to figure out what theories can cover a wide
range of stages involved in this process. Sun
(2008), with similar concern, investigates four
input processing models. Among those, there is
one particular work that stands out, which is the
Framework of Second Language Acquisition
presented by Gass (1997). Her framework has
been supported by other researchers (Izumi, 2003;
Sun, 2008; Truscott & Sharwood-Smith, 2011),
who also note the importance of Gass’ coverage
of a wide range of aspects in SLA process.

Theories concerning how second language
acquisition (SLA) occurs have been proposed by
numerous researchers over the past years. SLA
theories may either explore single elements that
are involved in the process of second language
acquisition or propose a complete process as a
continuum of various stages. For example, the

Input Hypothesis focuses on the role of input in
language acquisition without much investigation
on how this input is processed. Meanwhile, the
Noticing Hypothesis does investigate the issue of
noticing then how noticed features in the input are
further processed. However, when investigating
those theories, it should be noted that researchers

80


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 80 – 88

In her proposed framework, Gass (1997) explores
different stages involved in the process of
language acquisition with such a detailed
description of each stage. Those stages can be
listed as input, apperceived input, comprehended
input, intake, integration, and output. All of these
stages happen as a continuum (Gass, 1997).
According to her proposal, it is obvious that an
individual need firstly to be exposed to input
containing the target language, without which no
acquisition is claimed to occur. On the contrary,
exposure to input is not a guarantee for language
acquisition if it is not further processed (Gass,
1997; VanPatten, 2003; Ying, 1995). It is required
that input goes through several stages before it
reaches the final one, which is output. Also in this
framework, the output is the final stage of

language acquisition process as well as the
evidence of whether an individual can acquire the
target language or not (Gass, 1997). That output is
a proof of language acquisition is widely claimed
by many researchers (Gass & Selinker, 2008;
Swain, 1985, 1993, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1995).
Those researchers also praise the significance of
output in language acquisition and the use of
output to assess learners’ acquisition of the target
language.

learners’ output. The instructional setting of
formal teaching and learning also shows that same
idea where learners admit their understanding of
the target language but unable to produce correct
form of that target language (Mennim, 2007). To
answer those questions as well as to clarify the
role of output in language acquisition, this paper
reviews literature in the field emphasizing on
definitions of output, its roles in language
acquisition, and the arguments of whether the
output is a reliable indication of language
acquisition.
2. OUTPUT IN SECOND
ACQUISITION

LANGUAGE

2.1 Definitions and characteristics
As can be seen, the final stage in the process of

language acquisition is output (Gass, 1997). Gass
(1997) raises the importance of output as the
production based on what has been learned by
learners and the chance for learners to receive
feedback for improvements. However, there is not
a specific definition of output provided by Gass
(1997). The term “output” in fact can be defined
in certain fields such as technological output,
energy output, and factory output. Particularly, in
SLA, the common and general definition of
output refers to the language that learners produce
(Swain, 1985; VanPatten, 2003). This definition
receives agreements from other researchers. For
example, although Gass and Selinker (2008) do
not explicitly define what output is, they imply
that output is a practice of producing language
based on one’s existing knowledge for
communicative purposes. However, from the
definition of Gass and Selinker (2008), it is the
point of communicative purposes that should be
further investigated. In fact, that view has put
certain requirements on output, inferring that
output does not mean any types of language.
Swain (1985) and VanPatten (2003) reject that
generalisation when defining output. In detail,
Swain (1985), in her study of how learners of
French immersion programs produce output,

From this declaration, arguments emerge because
there are still questions on whether output can

sufficiently
indicate
language
acquisition
(Krashen, 1998; Leeser, 2008; Mennim, 2007;
VanPatten, 2003). The controversies happen in
both naturalistic and instructional settings where
an individual is claimed to acquire the target
language but fails to accurately produce that target
language. In naturalistic settings where learners
pick up features of the target language through
daily interaction, Schimdt (1990) realises that
learners are able to recognise how the target
language is perfectly produced by native speakers.
It is also concluded that those learners are even
able to form the underlying rules of the target
language. However, when it comes to producing
that target language, errors do exist in those
81


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 80 – 88

concludes that output refers to meaningful
messages as constituents of communication.
VanPatten (2003) provides examples of parrots
talking the human language and a person who
imitates what he hears from others without
awareness of the meaning of what he is saying.
Yet, none of these cases are accepted to be output

in SLA due to the lack of awareness or
understanding of the meaning of those produced
messages. In fact, output includes meaning since
it is a means of communication to express an
individual’s thoughts. Hence, these two views of
output presented by Swain (1985) and VanPatten
(2003)
are
important
when
learners’
understanding of the output and its constituents is
strongly emphasised as a requirement of output.
Still, there are questions retrieved from both
definitions.

this view of Swain is the Noticing Hypothesis
proposed by Schmidt (1990) who states that
learners need to notice the target language
features in the input for further processes and be
able to produce output that contains that feature.
Hence, in addition to its semantic feature, output
is expected to be accurate and precise in its
syntactic feature.
2.2 The role of output in language acquisition
In Gass’ (1997) framework, output is seen as the
final element, and Swain (1985) even develops
the Output Hypothesis to indicate how important
output is in SLA. The point of the further
investigation is why output is regarded as an

inevitable part of language acquisition. The
following section will explore the functions of
output which make it an important component in
SLA.

Since output is created based on learners’ existing
knowledge for communicative purposes, which
means output contains learners’ intended meaning
to express. It is questionable that if the meaning of
output is that all necessary to examine. The
limitation from most of the definitions of output is
that researchers do not explicitly justify if output
should be emphasised on its semantic or syntactic
features (Gass, 1997). This is noteworthy since
learners may produce output comprehensibly in
meaning but not precisely in structures. Swain
(1985) goes further with another view of output
focusing on its syntactic features. Undoubtedly,
learners when listening to a message can
understand the message meaning. In contrast,
when being required to produce language, besides
general meaning, it is noted that those produced
messages must be precise and coherent. This
explanation of output is stated when Swain
realises that learners in French immersion
programs fail to produce oral and written native
like French, especially in grammatical features
(Swain, 2000). This view of output from Swain is
preferable since it creates the requirements of
output to be not only comprehensible but also

precise and appropriate in structure. A support to

Regarding the role of output in language
acquisition, one of the pioneering studies is from
Swain (1985) who notes the importance of pushed
output. She holds the belief that there is no better
way to learn a language by producing it in some
ways. In her study of French immersion programs
in Canada, she realises that when learners are
pushed to use the target language for
communication, they are developing their
communicative skills to make the messages
comprehensible to other interlocutors. This,
according to Swain (1985, 1993), is the first and
most widely accepted function of output in
improving learners’ fluency through frequent
production of output containing that target
language.
However, Swain (1985, 1993) also admits that
fluency is not the only aim that output is expected
to contribute to SLA. During the process of
communication, learners will be able to realise
what they still lack in their language competency,
which prevents them from effectively conveying
meaningful messages. Hence, the pushed output is
claimed to help learners notice the gap in their
existing linguistic knowledge and trigger those
82

An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 80 – 88

learners to fill that gap, which means to develop
their language competency. The movement has
been shifted from semantic to syntactic features of
output, which is widely supported by other
researchers who also believe that in addition to
meaning, forms of language production should be
paid much attention to (Gass, 1997; Schmidt,
1990). Swain (1985) then develops Output
Hypothesis as the ultimate confirmation on the
role of output in language acquisition, referring
that “Its role is, at a minimum, to provide
opportunities for contextualized, meaningful use,
to test our hypothesis about the target language,
and to move the learner from a purely semantic
analysis of the language to a syntactic analysis of
it” (p. 252).

1998) has no clarification for the question.
Besides, Krashen (1998) bases on anxiety to
demotivate the learners’ production of output,
which is also irrelevant since he does not show
that learners in all cases of pushed output are
unpleasant and anxious. Research studies have
been done and show that learners are still willing
to learn, to acknowledge their shortage of
knowledge, and mostly to seek solutions in case
they face obstacles with their output (Leeser,
2008; Swain, 1985). As a result, the ideas of

Krashen (1985, 1998) are respected but not strong
enough to deny the role of output in learning.
Certain evidence can be used to argue what
Krashen (1998) proposes. Nobuyoshi and Ellis
(1993) also argue that pushed output does play
some roles in improving learners’ accuracy. In
their study, learners are expected to produce
output with the target language of Simple Past
tense. The researchers found that learners had
made progress in their accuracy over time. The
two researchers conclude that due to frequent
production of output containing Simple Past
features, learners are able to obtain quite a high
level of accuracy and fluency in their language
production where Simple Past features are
involved. Referring to what Swain (1985) and
Swain and Lapkin (1995) believe, output is so
important that it triggers learners to beware of
their linguistic shortage. In detail, in order to
produce output, learners need to apply their
knowledge and will realise that the output is not
effectively and appropriately produced, either in
form or meaning, due to their lack of some types
of linguistic knowledge. Therefore, they will pay
attention to their shortage and seek for
improvements. Swain (1993) outlines three
possibilities for learners in this case, stating that
(1) learners may ignore this lack, (2) they may
search in their existing knowledge to fill this gap,
and (3) they may refer to the input and notice

associated features in the input. To conclude, the
required output lightens their awareness of the
role of linguistic knowledge in order to produce

Krashen (1998), in contrast, rejects the need for
output since he believes that (1) learning can
happen without output and (2) pushed output may
have negative effects on learners. For the first
case, Krashen (1998) refers to the situation of
vocabulary acquisition. He reviews studies of
other researchers and concludes that vocabulary
can be acquired without the need for learners to
verbally express it. For example, a learner may
gain much vocabulary through listening and
reading without the need to use any of the
acquried vocabulary. In Krashen’s view, this is
still considered as acquisition despite the absence
of output. For the second case, Krashen (1985)
proposes Affective Filter Hypothesis by which he
claims that learning cannot happen effectively if
learners are under pressure or mental problems.
He then concludes that when learners are pushed
to produce output, they may be anxious and
unpleasant. Therefore, he disagrees with the
claims on the importance of pushed output, and by
extension, the necessity of output as proof of
language acquisition. In fact, it can be agreed that
learners do not always produce output to show
what they learn, but to what extent learning can be
created and how we can assess whether or not

what learners have learned is relevant. That
question is difficult to answer, and Krashen (1985,
83


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 80 – 88

output effectively (Swain, 1993). This issue is
similar to the view of “noticing the gap” presented
by Schmidt and Frota (1986) and Schmidt (1990).
Reasonably, learners are capable of realising what
they have not fully acquired based on what they
can produce. To illustrate, Swain and Lapkin
(1995) highly estimate the ability of learners to
realise this gap by themselves without feedback
from their interlocutors. This idea is similar to
what Schmidt (1990) found in his study. One
subject in Schmidt’s (1990) research is able to
convey meaningful conversations effectively
through noticing how the target language is
produced by native speakers. She then is able to
compare what elements constitute a meaningful
message and which of those elements she still
lacks. Besides, this case happens in a naturalistic
setting without any instructions or correction from
other interlocutors. Concluded by Schmidt (1990),
output does have its “noticing the gap” function
that can be done by the learners themselves to
realise what has been successfully acquired and
what still needs improving. As can be seen,

Krashen (1998) has reasons to state that learning
may happen without output, but effective learning
may not be isolated from output which is a strong
support for figuring out and filling learners’
shortage of knowledge. Hence, it seems that
Krashen’s (1998) argument against the role of
output in language acquisition is contended by
other researchers.

Surprisingly, although learners who are pushed to
produce output confirm that they notice more
words in the passage and have a better
comprehension of the text; in terms of the past
tense inflectional morpheme as the target
language, the learners fail to notice that. Hence,
not all output leads to effective noticing for
acquisition. Lesser (2008) elaborates that it is, in
fact, the types of output that may lead learners’
noticing to other aspects of the input and that
there is not always a certainty for pushed output to
promote more noticing to the target forms of
learners. This claim of Lesser (2008) is similar to
what Izumi, Bigelow, Fujiwara, and Fearnow
(1999) figure out. In their study, the experimental
group and controlled group are exposed to the
same input but with different types of required
output. Instead, it is shown that both groups notice
the target form with no significant difference.
Explained by Izumi et al (1999), although the
output may have some expected effects on

learners’ noticing, the experimental group is too
overloaded by high cognitive demanding tasks in
the output. This prevents them from deeply
noticing and analysing the target form. To
illustrate, the tasks that require learners to
reconstruct texts with greater freedom of choices
in structures will distract learners’ attention to the
target forms since learners may use various
structures to complete the tasks without changing
the meaning of the reconstructed version
compared to that of the original one. Especially,
one notable point that Lesser (2008) does not
mention is individual differences. It is realised by
Izumi et al (1999) that even after producing
output and being aware of their linguistic
problems; some learners fail to notice the target
forms of the input. Yet, the group that is pushed to
produce output does have greater accurate use of
the target form, which is a support to the role of
output in language acquisition (Izumi et al, 1999).
Hence, the role of output in promoting learners’
noticing of input is not always true. There are
other factors that influence this function.

Another challenge to the significance of output in
language acquisition is the belief that output is not
always helpful to learners’ noticing of the target
language. This claim is made by Leeser (2008)
who raises one important point that even though
learners are pushed to produce output, there is no

likeliness that target forms will be certainly
noticed. Through his research, Leeser (2008)
figures out that learners’ noticing may refer to
other aspects of the input rather than the target
language. To illustrate, he focuses on how pushed
output can create more noticing of the past tense
inflectional morpheme via aural input.
84


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 80 – 88

Reminded by Izumi and Bigelow (2000) and
Ghari (2011), the types of output tasks have
strong effects on learners’ noticing the target
forms, but the significance of output is
undeniable. This can be seen as a pedagogical
implication since teachers’ design of output tasks
may stimulate and direct learners’ attention to
certain features in the input.

inappropriately in the output. In his study, the
uncountability of the noun “garbage” is the focus.
In the input of his nine-month study, learners are
provided with the uncountable form of “garbage”
and other associated determiners which are used
for only noncount nouns. In their output, those
learners make mistakes when using garbage in a
plural form. They are then corrected, and they do
have some accurate uses of the form. Surprisingly,

in later cases in their oral output, this uncountable
noun again exists in a non-target way. The recalls
on the off-target use of garbage are undertaken
since Mennim (2007) is in doubt of his
participants’ noticing and acquisition of the form.
He decides to conduct interviews with those
participants. Eventually, it is the fact that those
learners are truly aware of the form and its use,
but still they in several cases cannot achieve it in a
target-like way. It can be then concluded that
there is no complete guarantee of output as a
confirmation of learners’ unawareness or lack of
noticing on target forms.

2.3 Questions on output as an evidence of
language acquisition
The above statements indicate that output is
considered as the final stage in language
acquisition and is believed to be proof of learners’
acquisition of the target language. Numerous
researchers (Schmidt, 1990; Swain, 1985; Swain
& Lapkin, 1995) through mentioning the noticing
function of output somehow accept that language
acquisition can be measured by output since
ineffectively produced output means unsuccessful
or insufficient language acquisition; that is why
learners need to fix their language gap. However,
there are still such arguments on this declaration
because there are researchers who find it
unreliable to base on output as a confirmation of

one’s acquisition of the target language. This
section of the paper presents arguments on this
issue and searches for clarifications with the hope
of achieving a complete view on whether output
should be seen as an evidence of language
acquisition.

The idea of Mennim (2007) is rather interesting to
test the idea of noticing of Schmidt (1995, 2010)
and output of Swain (1985, 1993, 2000). Schmidt
(1995, 2010) claims that noticing is sufficient for
learning, but it is clear that learners’ noticing and
even understanding target forms are not easily
measured based on learners’ output. Output can
help figure out what learners are not fully aware
but if that unawareness is explicitly shown in their
output. The study of Mennim (2007) contradicts
those ideas at last. Mennim seems to have good
arguments on learners’ awareness and output;
further thoughts should also be put into
considerations based on this study. Noticing and
output still have their roles in language learning,
but it is still debatable on the reliability to
examine learners’ noticing and awareness of some
features from their output. Especially, Mennim
focuses on only one word “garbage” which does
not imply any other rules, except its
uncountability. In the case of other target forms
which obtain more complicated rules, it is more

A notable challenge to the role of output is
whether the incorrectness of output derives from
learners’ unawareness of the target forms. Once
again, Swain (1985, 1993, 2000) seems to agree
that incorrectness of output is a consequence of
unawareness of the target language. Opponents
(Mennim, 2007; Schmidt, 1990, 1995, 2010) say
that output is not always a reliable means to
evaluate learners’ awareness or acquisition of the
target language features. To illustrate, Mennim
(2007) proves that though learners have carefully
noticed and gained understanding of the target
forms, those forms are still produced
85


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 80 – 88

questionable if learners are able to gain
awareness, and if output, especially oral output, is
reliable to test the extent of learners’ awareness of
the forms. Therefore, it has been proved to be not
completely persuasive to rely on learners’ output
to judge their acquisition of the target language. In
fact, learners’ output should be examined during
the whole process itself. Moreover, Mennim bases
on oral output to investigate learners’ awareness;
it is not sure if written output can obtain a higher
level of accurate use of the target form. Besides, if
the word “garbage” is produced accurately,

whether this is the consequence of learners’
understanding of its uncountability or learners’
memorisation of the word without any
understanding of its form and use. This is indeed
serious to think about since in some cases output
may contain features that originate from memory
rather than understanding. In fact, there have been
arguments on the issue of memorisation or rote
learning
and
language
development.
Memorisation does have its merits in language
learning indicated by learners’ correct repetition
of language form (Ding, 2007; Duong, 2006).
However, in their cases, memorisation and
repetition are seen as rehearsals which can help
learners achieve good performances in the exams
where learners meet similar questions to what
they have seen and memorised. Hargreaves (2001)
strongly disagrees with this rote learning. He says
that this kind of traditional form of learning and
assessment leads learners to learn by heart for
high marks, and this is not what learning should
aim at. Also, Boyle (2004) does not equalise
memorisation with understanding, stating that
“memorization is generally considered as the first
step in understanding (not a substitute for it)”
(p.124). These two researchers believe that
learning happens when learners are able to

understand the use of a language form and be able
to use that form in different contexts. Hargreaves
(2001) and Boyle (2004) clearly differentiate
memorisation and understanding. Although
memorisation may have certain roles in learning

and to achieve an understanding of the target
form, seeing memorisation as the outcome or
proof of learners is not supported by those
researchers. From the above statements on
accurate productions of language forms in
learners’ output, it is clear that accurate output is
not ways seen as acquisition if learners’
understanding of language forms is confirmed. In
fact, in the Noticing Hypothesis, Schmidt (1990,
1995, 2010) also refers to understanding as a
prerequisite of acquisition. Claimed by Schmidt
(1990, 1995, 2010), noticing how a language form
is used is mandatory but not sufficient or
acquisition of the form unless learners are able to
figure out the underlying rules of that form, which
is called understanding by Schmidt. Therefore, it
is necessary to conclude that learners’ accurate
output may not always be a reliable indication of
acquisition unless they are aware of the target
language and its underlying rules.
3. CONCLUSION AND
IMPLICATIONS

PEDAGOGICAL

From what has been reviewed and discussed, the
paper raises some pedagogical implications in
relation to output in language acquisition and
education. Firstly, it can be affirmed that output
does play an important role in language
acquisition since it helps identify what learners
have and have not acquired. Hence, language
education should not be neglected from this issue
since output has shown its functions in triggering
learners’ attention to their existing knowledge and
seeking improvements for effective output
productions. Notably, when discussing output, it
should be emphasised on both meaning and
structure of output, in other words, both semantic
and syntactic features. In language education, the
arguments have been long raised whether fluency
or accuracy, and whether form or meaning should
be the focus in teaching and learning. From the
discussion throughout the paper, both fluency and
accuracy, meaning and form should be paid
attention to since effective output should be
meaningful and structurally precise. Although the
86


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 80 – 88

Ghari, A. (2011). The effects of output task types
on noticing and learning of English past

modals: A case of intermediate Persian adult
learners of English. Journal of Language
Teaching Research, 2(5), 1180-1191.

function of output is confirmed by some
researchers, there are still a number of questions
to investigate. Output is not always reliable to
judge one’s awareness of target forms based on
the inaccurate use of that target language by
learners. Another challenge refers to the fact that
when producing output, whether learners are fully
aware of the forms or they just repeat what they
have been instructed. When assessing learners’
linguistic performances, educators should be
mindful of this matter since inaccurate output
does not always indicate a failure in language
acquisition, nor does accurate output guarantee
acquisition of the target language. These
arguments are important and have effects on the
view of output as a significant part of language
acquisition. However, in general, output is
strongly encouraged and needs more careful
views to best justify learners’ problems in this
process.

4. Hargreaves, D. H. (2001). A capital theory of
school effectiveness and improvement. British
Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 487503.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production
processes in second language learning: In

search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the
Output Hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24(2),
168-196.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output
promote noticing and second language
acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 239–
278.
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow,
S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis:
Effects of output on noticing and second
language acquisition. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition,21(3), 421–452.

REFERENCES
Boyle, H. (2004). Modernization of education and
Kuranic adaptations in Morroco. In H. Daun &
G. Walford (Eds). Educational strategies
among Muslims in the context of globalization:
some national case studies. Leiden: BRILL

Krashen. S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis.
London, UK: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output.
System, 26(2), 175-182.

Ding, Y. (2007). Text memorization and
imitation: The practices of successful Chinese
learners of English. System, 35(2), 271-280.
Duong, T.H.O. (2006). Memorization and EFL
students' strategies at university level in

Vietnam. TESL-EJ, 10(2), 1-21.

Leeser, M. J. (2008). Pushed output, noticing, and
development of past tense morphology in
content-based instruction. The Canadian
Modern Language Review, 65(2), 195-220.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language
acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.

Mennim, P. (2007). Long-term effects of noticing
on oral output. Language Teaching Research,
11(3), 265-280.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second
language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused
communication tasks and second language
acquisition. ELT Journal, 47(3), 203-210.

Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language
acquisition: An introductory course. New
York, USA: Routledge.

Saleemi, A. P. (1989). Inputs for L2 acquisition.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, 27(3), 173-191.

87


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 80 – 88

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in
second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11(2), 129-158.

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

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign
language learning: A tutorial on attention and
awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt. (Ed.),
Attention and awareness in foreign language
learning (pp.1-63). Honolulu, HI: University
of Hawai’i.

Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just
speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158 – 164.

Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and
individual differences in language learning. In

W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M.
Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker,
Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010 (pp. 721-737).
Singapore: National University of Singapore,
Centre for Language Studies.

Swain, M. (2000). French immersion research in
Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and
applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 20, 199-212.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in
output and the cognitive processes they
generate: A step towards second language
learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391.

Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic
conversational ability in a second language: A
case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In
R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn:
Conversation in second language acquisition
(pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury.

Truscott, J., & Sharwood Smith, M. (2011). Input,
intake, and consciousness: The quest for a
theoretical foundation. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 33(4), 497-528.
VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A
teacher’s guide to second language
acquisition. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Sun, Y. A. (2008). Input processing in second
language acquisition: A discussion of four
input processing models. Columbia University
Working Papers in TESOL & Applied
Linguistics, 8(1), 1-10.

Ying, H. (1995). What sort of input is needed for
intake? International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 33(3), 175-194.

88