I think you missed some pretty cool parts of her theory. Most people think that output enhances only fluency, but she claims it improves accuracy, too. This is because output is more cognitively demanding than input and so once you use a grammatical structure in speaking or writing, it sticks with you better than if you heard it many times. Also, with the hypothesis testing, she meant that you get to see other people's reactions immediately and so you find out very quickly if what you think makes sense actually makes sense to others. By the way, pretty cool that you speak my language! Jsem z Český republiky.
Radka Smith Slamova I guess this could be true theoretically. But in practice when you output in the early stages of learning a language, you are limiting the amount of language content and range of vocabulary that you are coming into contact with. That is why I prefer to delay output until I have more familiarity with the language and I’m more likely to have a rich exchanges and a satisfactory experience. I hope to get back to my Czech learning. I really enjoyed it.
@@Thelinguist Which author says this, please? As far I as know, theory is the best way humans have created to explain the world (including LL). Now, it may be helpful to understand that to learn language one needs to be part of the community (and interact, especially at early stages of proficiency to learn the social rules of that community)where the language is spoken. Language is much greater than vocabulary and grammar.
@@Thelinguist sometimes you've got to use the language at an early stage. When I first moved to Japan, I didn't know a word. Getting two coffees when I ordered one soon corrected my output because I had to review the pronunciation I had gotten wrong. Once I had done so, I got what I ordered.
One problem with language learning theories is that they look at all languages as the same. Yes, you could just classify them into left-branching and right-branching, but the way in which meaning is conveyed in different languages is different. Ex. Japanese is meant to be telegraphic, grammatical function is assigned not intrinsic. Italian is highly dependent on morphology while English is word order dependent. The expectations for communication in those languages are also quite different. ESL emphasizes just getting your message across because you can just string some words in English together and do that. That's not the case in Italian. Also native speakers in Japan and Italy are not as used to non-native speakers of their languages. Language learning is all input, all output, or interaction is too simplistic. It is all of those plus a number of other factors. People who have learned various languages and lived in those countries will have understood this.
My experience with German is that I was able to speak a bit of German to get around learning through a heavily output method Pimsleur. In my official German class I didn't do so well with the traditional class format but as my teacher told me don't worry you speak German. The others know the grammar, but you really use the language. The output hypothesis does show where you are weak and need to work on. But it depends on the output you are producing. Is it through conversations with natives or class room exercises. Also it can take thousands of hours to learn a language through comprehensible input.
Merrill Swain's hypothesis is a an answer to Krashen's input hypothesis. Unfortunately, a lot has changed since 1984 and the input hypothesis is not fully complete without output. Input and combination of output is needed to become proficient in communication. I'm sorry but Krashen is wrong when he says all you need is input.
The difficult thing with language learning theory is that everyone has a different personality. In the end input, as well as output and interaction are important. But the amount and the order of the three differs per learner. Motivation is a big part of language learning, and where one learners motivation might take a huge hit when confronted with a mistake, the other one might enjoy interactions in the target language and could't care less if they make mistakes in early stages of learning. After all they can learn from it. I definitely don't think you should refrain from output completely in early stages. But the amount and the complexity of the output that you're comfortable with depends on you. Your output should gradually get complexer over time though, mistakes are inevitable, and it may take some courage to make them, but it's essential for noticing the gap and knowing what requires practice.
Hi Steve, I agree with your “balance” on these two hypotheses. The challenge early on is to get traction with comprehension when starting from zero. I am 8 months(80-100 hrs?) into Japanese and am starting to notice improved comprehension of simple conversations. I tried speaking earlier but then stopped.
I know foreigners who have lived in Japan for more than 10 years and still can't speak the language beyond very rudimentary conversation about their hobbies etc. Those foreigners who have studied diligently while living in Japan have not only become literate, but have achieved native speaker fluency. Certainly, input is paramount in learning any language, but output is necessary to develop and retain the language. This is especially true of writing in Japanese. It took me 15 years to become fully literate in Japanese! By fully literate I mean able to take a full course load at a university in Japanese, read a newspaper or fill out a 5 page insurance form prior to an operation.
El cerebro humano no diferencia la fuente del input recibido,le da igual si proviene de un libro,del televisor o de la persona con la que estamos hablando,si yo practico speaking todos los días en realidad estoy recibiendo input diario,aquellos políglotas que creen que su progreso es debido al speaking que realizan desde que comienzan a estudiar el idioma en realidad progresan por el input recibido en sus conversaciones.
Pero no se puede recibir suficiente input cuando la mitad del tiempo estás hablando. Solo leer e escuchar significa que estás recibiendo mucho más input, entonces, te llevará menos tiempo para llegar en el nivel que necesitas para sentir comodo. lo siento mucho por mi español.
It's interesting that youwere promoting a method for laguage learning and you hadn't come across output theory until someone mentioned it. How can you be so sure about what you say when you haven't even heard of one of the most famous hypotheses in language learning? I'm not saying you're wrong or anything. it was just shocked when you sai you hadn't heard of output hypothesis.
Hi Steve and thanks for your vídeos, they are all very useful. Only one question pls, what kind of input do you usually use? I mean, you read and listen fifty fifty or do you spend more time just reading? Thanks again and rgds
+Steve Kaufmann - lingosteve Hey :) Do you know that german is narder than it is worth? I kinda wanna learn it, I have a lot of german friends but I don't know, I am not pretty sure
+I Wont Give MyFucking Name I wouldn't say German is "harder than it's worth". It's challenging but honestly it's not as bad as people make it out to be. If you want to learn give it a try. At least you have German friends. I'm probably learning all kind of bad habits lol.
+Acid_Lace I actually wanna learn it but I go back and forth for it, I mean, I barely could with the english, Right now I'm fluent but it took 1 whole year you know? :/
Hey Steve, do you find that having more hours of exposure a day makes that time more effecient? For example if you studied 5 hours in a day would you personally take more away from that then an hour a day for 5 days? Thank you for your videos.
+Cinnamon Twist an hour a day sounds much better. But it might depend what you are focusing on. I find in Chinese if I speak for an hour a day I might just be saying pretty basic things, but if I speak for 5 hours in a day (while travelling with someone etc), then I feel like our conversations go down a lot of new paths and allows you to really practice it well. For something like reading I think it'd be better to do an hour a day so that it's just permanently a part of your life
+Cinnamon Twist the more intensively you study the better you do. 5 hours a day for a month is better than the same amount of hours spread over a year, in my experience.
Steve, I would like to ask you something important regarding language learning (which possibly others have encountered). I am kind of in a catch-22 with learning new words. If I am not 100% sure what a word means or that it is completely correct, I find that my intention to learn or to even to memorize the word isn't there. Because of this, I ask my language partners questions about lists of words, but there is a limit of how many I can ask. In some cases, without asking, I am afraid of learning and memorizing incorrect meanings and definitions of words, maybe having to wait a year or so before a native speaker finally corrects me. So the situation is that you obviously need to know the correct meaning of words to learn them, but on the opposite side, being paralyzed from having to be 100% certain of everything makes it that you don't learn many words. How can you get a good balance of the two extremes (either the careless learner or the perfectionist learner)? Do you think you could do a video about this? I am sure it could help many people. Kind regards.
+KevJYT I never think I can learn the full meaning of a word the first time I meet it. Only after a lot of exposure do I start to get a sense of how the word is used. Maybe I will do a video on this thank you
+Steve Kaufmann - lingosteve Cool. To focus what I was saying, it is mainly about a balance of the careless-study trait vs. the perfectionist-learner trait. With the former, you end up learning a whole bunch of things incorrectly; with the latter it is agonizing and you don't learn much. What situations to focus on the more perfectionist take, when to let go, etc. Regards.
I know foreigners who have lived in Japan for more than 10 years and still can't speak the language beyond very rudimentary conversation about their hobbies etc. Those foreigners who have studied diligently while living in Japan have not only become literate, but have achieved native speaker fluency. Certainly, input is paramount in learning any language, but output is necessary to develop and retain the language.
Gordon, I think you're right but you're speaking from a different context. If you're traveling to a country, of course you'd need to produce output - but the obvious fact is that output = practice, not learning. That's why Steve says input first, output second. You can't produce what you don't know. Just like the foreigners you mention who can't speak the local language beyond a few rudimentary words - they might speak those words very well, but they never put an effort into really consuming enough comprehensible input in that language! I also agree with you that output can really help boost a learner's CONFIDENCE and help them "see" where they are going. So I 100% support a minimum amount of output activities even for absolute beginners. For me, I think we should start with a 90-10 input to output ratio, and gradually switch to 60-40. I'm only fluent in English because I read so many books and watched so many movies as a teenager (couldn't watch something without subtitles until I was almost 20).
@@mngrwl Certainly, input is the starting point by necessity. You can't put out what you don't have in. That said, I disagree that output is simply practice. One has to dig down into the well of what has input to be able to produce it and communicate. The more input you have the more arduous this task becomes as the well of foreign, unused words becomes a sea. The more you access and produce each word or phrase, the less arduous the task becomes. Much like learning to play the piano. Practice isn't simply an exercise in doing what you've learned, but learning to produce what you've learned fluidly and automatically. For adult language learners of a 2nd language, production can happen almost immediately, simply by learning a core of everyday phrases that are related to daily activities such as ordering in a restaurant, asking when the next train arrives, asking where the washroom is, etc. These short task based communication exercises can be utilised by an absolute beginner with ease. The other productive aspect of using the language almost immediately is the feedback you get from the native speaker, either in the form of correction or verification. If your language is discernible and accurate you'll get the response you expect. If your pronunciation is off or you've used an incorrect word or phrase, you'll get a look of confusion or bemusement from the native speaker. I'm not the least bit interested in % of input/output ratios. I don't see that kind of focus as useful. I think just having a steady persistent approach to language acquisition is best. And I think producing as soon as possible...as on day 1 is optimal. Especially, in terms of retention vis a vis, the exercise of digging into your mind to pull out and produce what you've input. The more you do such a thing, the quicker and better your production, i.e ability to write or speak becomes.
@@gordonbgraham Yes, from a big picture perspective, as long as you consistently, steadily spend time learning the language, you'll get there in the end, and the exact learning method is just detail. :) No disagreements that speaking is helpful either. This discussion is more about what learning method is optimal, what will reduce frustration and keep a student from getting discouraged and generate the most sustainable results. Comprehensible input is not just a hypothesis - it has been proven time and again and beaten all other learning methodologies. All Steve is trying to say is that if FLUENCY is the goal, then at the EARLY stages, all the benefits of output can be had from just a small dose each week - while the vast majority of time is spent on input. He's not saying output is a waste of time. In fact he says that in the later stages, we do need a lot of output. What you're saying is the same thing that Benny Lewis (fluentin3months.com) advocates for - he focuses strongly on speaking from day one, for all the reasons you mentioned. But all the languages he's *actually* fluent in are those that he spent a long time getting lots of input in with. He hasn't been able to become FLUENT in any language using his own method, and nor have any of his students managed to do so - but it's attractive to newbies because it gives people the illusion of progress. And I should know, because that's what happened with my Chinese. I drank that kool-aid.
@@mngrwl The most optimal learning method is a comprehensive one that includes textbook learning, "comprehensive input" and production. Fluency in 3 months is absurd unless your idea of fluency is ordering food or telling someone what you did on the weekend. Discussing the latest uptick in the economy then in a heartbeat switching to the political narrative your counterpart wishes to talk about is impossible unless you're autistic and you were gifted with a genius level of language acquisition ability. Naturally, if you live in the country of the 2nd language you're learning, the vast majority of your experience will be one of input simply by dint of the fact that you are immersed in the language which you are surrounded by 24/7. In my experience, that was a cacophony of discordant sounds so foreign to my ear that even the words I had "learned" got obscured by the slew of words drowning them out in, according to Google, the fastest spoken language on the planet. What wasn't difficult was picking up a textbook and learning some vocabulary, rudimentary grammar and some useful phrases for daily life that I could use right away. Having had tasks to perform in daily life, like shopping, vastly improved my ability for recall in terms of producing what I had learned in textbooks. Production expedited my acquisition. Learning is not reading a word for the first time. Learning is absorbing that word or phrase in your mind coupled with the ability to produce it almost immediately. If I'm learning a song on the piano, I can't say "I've learned it", until I can actually play it. Playing expedites learning, mistakes and all.
Just revisiting this debate but I think it is a false debate. Similar to what Steve says they are both critical at different stages and in different amounts. I don't see where Swain dismisses input in her writing, she simply asserts output is important to achieve fluency. Krashen really likes to deride output at times but does concede it can be useful as well. Honestly, some of the best language learners I know are the extreme extroverts who started speaking from day one and never stopped. Other very successful language learners I know studied mostly through input day after day by themselves. Whatever works for you is the answer.
No entiendo señor Kauffman por qué existe semejante batalla entre los defensores del output y el input,¿es que ninguna de las dos partes se da cuenta que cuando uno está hablando con alguien(output)en realidad está escuchando a la otra persona?por lo que también realiza input,yo hablo,y después escucho,y así es como progresamos en nuestras lenguas maternas desde que somos niños.
Steve, what do you think about Luca's new video concerning fluency (ruclips.net/video/6wnbX3Z42EM/видео.html). In case you haven't seen it, you are (implicitly) mentioned in it.
+Hector Tormos Russian is not your native language, right? Let me correct you, if so: А, пожалуй, "output" можно также получать дома. одному... It still sounds a little off (because I am not sure what you were trying to say), but much better than before. Why you used "выписывать" here, anyway? Also, "output"="вывод", "input"="ввод". If you're native and didn't need any correction, sorry.
+Hector Tormos You'r welcome! =) You should work on your inflections, by the way. It is hard part of learning Russian language. What is your native language? And let's improve your Russian a little more: Ну, видишь, я написал этот комментарий сидя один дома, и всё таки улучшил мой русский (благодаря твоим исправлениям - спасибо большое). "Вывод" doesn't sound good in your sentence. Probably, because we didn't define the term "вывод" in Russian clearly enough. There are a lot of possible translation for "output" in Russian: www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&s=output&l1=1 I think, you should specify it more. I mean, not just "вывод", but "вывод информации".
+Sergy Orloff Так, спасибо еще раз за вывода информации. Мои родные языки - испанский и каталонский. А конечно русский остается трудно для меня, но стоит хлопот из-за Толстого, и Пушкина, и россиянок, которые обладающие, согласно статистике, самые большие мире сиськи. Кстати, твои английский - очень хорошо
Many "hypotheses'" are overrated ie. commonsense wrapped up in some kind of theoretical analysis, or as you say "splits hairs". Basically input before output is a commonsense approach - as you say, "not speaking at an early stage". In other words, the passive skills of reading and listening at an earlier stage will help support the active skills of speaking and writing at a later stage. I cannot really see how output can also be a kind of input-related process, as Merrill implies. On another point, when a language learner is speaking in class, language teachers may or may not correct the learner while they are giving output. I'm not quite sure which is best, but I think teachers do feel an obligation to provide instant feedback, however it may influence the train of thought of the learner and distract their attention to form. However, placing emphasis on form when producing language may be beneficial, in my opinion.
Steve, I take both your point and Merrill Swain's. I have a solution that I think reconciles both. It requires a 10 minute or so demonstration that I'd like to share with you if you are interested. My Skype name is: TonyMarshMethod
Hi Tony, I am currently writing an essay about the input and ouput theories and I would like to know more about how they can be reconciled. Let me know if I can contact you on skyp as well. Thank you
What is with this bunch of theories and categorizations of language learning?? So pointless in my opinion. The simple truth is that there cannot be successful language acquisition without input, and likewise without output. It's all one big chunk.
Nobody questions that. The real question is what should be given more time, effort and attention. People don't understand that speaking is IMITATION. In order to imitate something, you need a model, you need to listen to what people say and read what they write. That's why input comes first. There's a silent period in language acquisition during which people can't speak at all. However, teachers force their students to practice speaking as much as possible since day one while not giving them enough input. As a result, people get discouraged and stop learning the language.
@@vladyslavkamynin8121 Certainly, input precedes output in both speaking and writing. That said, try becoming literate in Japanese without output. Also, when one first begins to learn a language, output acts as a corrective agent in that the response you get from your speech can reflect your competence or lack thereof. For example, when I fist moved to Japan, I kept getting two coffees when I ordered one. That acted as a cue and directive for me to review and increase my input of a particular phrase. Yes, input is paramount, but output is also necessary to expedite advancement in language acquisition.
I think you missed some pretty cool parts of her theory. Most people think that output enhances only fluency, but she claims it improves accuracy, too. This is because output is more cognitively demanding than input and so once you use a grammatical structure in speaking or writing, it sticks with you better than if you heard it many times. Also, with the hypothesis testing, she meant that you get to see other people's reactions immediately and so you find out very quickly if what you think makes sense actually makes sense to others. By the way, pretty cool that you speak my language! Jsem z Český republiky.
Radka Smith Slamova I guess this could be true theoretically. But in practice when you output in the early stages of learning a language, you are limiting the amount of language content and range of vocabulary that you are coming into contact with. That is why I prefer to delay output until I have more familiarity with the language and I’m more likely to have a rich exchanges and a satisfactory experience. I hope to get back to my Czech learning. I really enjoyed it.
@@Thelinguist Which author says this, please? As far I as know, theory is the best way humans have created to explain the world (including LL). Now, it may be helpful to understand that to learn language one needs to be part of the community (and interact, especially at early stages of proficiency to learn the social rules of that community)where the language is spoken. Language is much greater than vocabulary and grammar.
@@JavierRodriguez-zi3ud He believes in Stephen Krashen
@@JavierRodriguez-zi3ud I learnt English through output tho...
@@Thelinguist sometimes you've got to use the language at an early stage. When I first moved to Japan, I didn't know a word. Getting two coffees when I ordered one soon corrected my output because I had to review the pronunciation I had gotten wrong. Once I had done so, I got what I ordered.
One problem with language learning theories is that they look at all languages as the same. Yes, you could just classify them into left-branching and right-branching, but the way in which meaning is conveyed in different languages is different. Ex. Japanese is meant to be telegraphic, grammatical function is assigned not intrinsic. Italian is highly dependent on morphology while English is word order dependent. The expectations for communication in those languages are also quite different. ESL emphasizes just getting your message across because you can just string some words in English together and do that. That's not the case in Italian. Also native speakers in Japan and Italy are not as used to non-native speakers of their languages. Language learning is all input, all output, or interaction is too simplistic. It is all of those plus a number of other factors. People who have learned various languages and lived in those countries will have understood this.
My experience with German is that I was able to speak a bit of German to get around learning through a heavily output method Pimsleur. In my official German class I didn't do so well with the traditional class format but as my teacher told me don't worry you speak German. The others know the grammar, but you really use the language. The output hypothesis does show where you are weak and need to work on. But it depends on the output you are producing. Is it through conversations with natives or class room exercises. Also it can take thousands of hours to learn a language through comprehensible input.
Merrill Swain's hypothesis is a an answer to Krashen's input hypothesis. Unfortunately, a lot has changed since 1984 and the input hypothesis is not fully complete without output. Input and combination of output is needed to become proficient in communication. I'm sorry but Krashen is wrong when he says all you need is input.
The difficult thing with language learning theory is that everyone has a different personality. In the end input, as well as output and interaction are important. But the amount and the order of the three differs per learner. Motivation is a big part of language learning, and where one learners motivation might take a huge hit when confronted with a mistake, the other one might enjoy interactions in the target language and could't care less if they make mistakes in early stages of learning. After all they can learn from it.
I definitely don't think you should refrain from output completely in early stages. But the amount and the complexity of the output that you're comfortable with depends on you. Your output should gradually get complexer over time though, mistakes are inevitable, and it may take some courage to make them, but it's essential for noticing the gap and knowing what requires practice.
Massive input creates effortless output eventually.
'eventually' being the key word!
Nope.
That's outright a lie.
It's a completely different activity
Hi Steve, I agree with your “balance” on these two hypotheses. The challenge early on is to get traction with comprehension when starting from zero. I am 8 months(80-100 hrs?) into Japanese and am starting to notice improved comprehension of simple conversations. I tried speaking earlier but then stopped.
How is your Japanese now
I know foreigners who have lived in Japan for more than 10 years and still can't speak the language beyond very rudimentary conversation about their hobbies etc. Those foreigners who have studied diligently while living in Japan have not only become literate, but have achieved native speaker fluency. Certainly, input is paramount in learning any language, but output is necessary to develop and retain the language. This is especially true of writing in Japanese. It took me 15 years to become fully literate in Japanese! By fully literate I mean able to take a full course load at a university in Japanese, read a newspaper or fill out a 5 page insurance form prior to an operation.
VERY INTERSTING! MANY THANKS!
El cerebro humano no diferencia la fuente del input recibido,le da igual si proviene de un libro,del televisor o de la persona con la que estamos hablando,si yo practico speaking todos los días en realidad estoy recibiendo input diario,aquellos políglotas que creen que su progreso es debido al speaking que realizan desde que comienzan a estudiar el idioma en realidad progresan por el input recibido en sus conversaciones.
Pero no se puede recibir suficiente input cuando la mitad del tiempo estás hablando. Solo leer e escuchar significa que estás recibiendo mucho más input, entonces, te llevará menos tiempo para llegar en el nivel que necesitas para sentir comodo. lo siento mucho por mi español.
It's interesting that youwere promoting a method for laguage learning and you hadn't come across output theory until someone mentioned it. How can you be so sure about what you say when you haven't even heard of one of the most famous hypotheses in language learning? I'm not saying you're wrong or anything. it was just shocked when you sai you hadn't heard of output hypothesis.
Hi Steve and thanks for your vídeos, they are all very useful. Only one question pls, what kind of input do you usually use? I mean, you read and listen fifty fifty or do you spend more time just reading? Thanks again and rgds
+bielka mum When I have dedicated time I read and use LingQ. When doing other chores I listen. Probably 70-30 listening.
+Steve Kaufmann - lingosteve Hey :) Do you know that german is narder than it is worth? I kinda wanna learn it, I have a lot of german friends but I don't know, I am not pretty sure
+I Wont Give MyFucking Name I wouldn't say German is "harder than it's worth". It's challenging but honestly it's not as bad as people make it out to be. If you want to learn give it a try. At least you have German friends. I'm probably learning all kind of bad habits lol.
+Acid_Lace I actually wanna learn it but I go back and forth for it, I mean, I barely could with the english, Right now I'm fluent but it took 1 whole year you know? :/
How can you give output without first acquiring input?
Nice video sir. Ctet exam question related topic. Love from India.
Hey Steve, do you find that having more hours of exposure a day makes that time more effecient? For example if you studied 5 hours in a day would you personally take more away from that then an hour a day for 5 days? Thank you for your videos.
+Cinnamon Twist an hour a day sounds much better.
But it might depend what you are focusing on. I find in Chinese if I speak for an hour a day I might just be saying pretty basic things, but if I speak for 5 hours in a day (while travelling with someone etc), then I feel like our conversations go down a lot of new paths and allows you to really practice it well. For something like reading I think it'd be better to do an hour a day so that it's just permanently a part of your life
+Cinnamon Twist the more intensively you study the better you do. 5 hours a day for a month is better than the same amount of hours spread over a year, in my experience.
Thank you!
thank you
Steve, I would like to ask you something important regarding language learning (which possibly others have encountered).
I am kind of in a catch-22 with learning new words. If I am not 100% sure what a word means or that it is completely correct, I find that my intention to learn or to even to memorize the word isn't there. Because of this, I ask my language partners questions about lists of words, but there is a limit of how many I can ask. In some cases, without asking, I am afraid of learning and memorizing incorrect meanings and definitions of words, maybe having to wait a year or so before a native speaker finally corrects me.
So the situation is that you obviously need to know the correct meaning of words to learn them, but on the opposite side, being paralyzed from having to be 100% certain of everything makes it that you don't learn many words.
How can you get a good balance of the two extremes (either the careless learner or the perfectionist learner)?
Do you think you could do a video about this? I am sure it could help many people.
Kind regards.
+KevJYT I never think I can learn the full meaning of a word the first time I meet it. Only after a lot of exposure do I start to get a sense of how the word is used. Maybe I will do a video on this thank you
+Steve Kaufmann - lingosteve Cool. To focus what I was saying, it is mainly about a balance of the careless-study trait vs. the perfectionist-learner trait. With the former, you end up learning a whole bunch of things incorrectly; with the latter it is agonizing and you don't learn much. What situations to focus on the more perfectionist take, when to let go, etc.
Regards.
I know foreigners who have lived in Japan for more than 10 years and still can't speak the language beyond very rudimentary conversation about their hobbies etc. Those foreigners who have studied diligently while living in Japan have not only become literate, but have achieved native speaker fluency. Certainly, input is paramount in learning any language, but output is necessary to develop and retain the language.
Gordon, I think you're right but you're speaking from a different context. If you're traveling to a country, of course you'd need to produce output - but the obvious fact is that output = practice, not learning. That's why Steve says input first, output second. You can't produce what you don't know. Just like the foreigners you mention who can't speak the local language beyond a few rudimentary words - they might speak those words very well, but they never put an effort into really consuming enough comprehensible input in that language!
I also agree with you that output can really help boost a learner's CONFIDENCE and help them "see" where they are going. So I 100% support a minimum amount of output activities even for absolute beginners.
For me, I think we should start with a 90-10 input to output ratio, and gradually switch to 60-40. I'm only fluent in English because I read so many books and watched so many movies as a teenager (couldn't watch something without subtitles until I was almost 20).
Here's a video Steve made a long time back that validates what you said :) ruclips.net/video/PGST_E-rHyA/видео.html
@@mngrwl Certainly, input is the starting point by necessity. You can't put out what you don't have in. That said, I disagree that output is simply practice. One has to dig down into the well of what has input to be able to produce it and communicate. The more input you have the more arduous this task becomes as the well of foreign, unused words becomes a sea. The more you access and produce each word or phrase, the less arduous the task becomes. Much like learning to play the piano. Practice isn't simply an exercise in doing what you've learned, but learning to produce what you've learned fluidly and automatically. For adult language learners of a 2nd language, production can happen almost immediately, simply by learning a core of everyday phrases that are related to daily activities such as ordering in a restaurant, asking when the next train arrives, asking where the washroom is, etc. These short task based communication exercises can be utilised by an absolute beginner with ease. The other productive aspect of using the language almost immediately is the feedback you get from the native speaker, either in the form of correction or verification. If your language is discernible and accurate you'll get the response you expect. If your pronunciation is off or you've used an incorrect word or phrase, you'll get a look of confusion or bemusement from the native speaker. I'm not the least bit interested in % of input/output ratios. I don't see that kind of focus as useful. I think just having a steady persistent approach to language acquisition is best. And I think producing as soon as possible...as on day 1 is optimal. Especially, in terms of retention vis a vis, the exercise of digging into your mind to pull out and produce what you've input. The more you do such a thing, the quicker and better your production, i.e ability to write or speak becomes.
@@gordonbgraham Yes, from a big picture perspective, as long as you consistently, steadily spend time learning the language, you'll get there in the end, and the exact learning method is just detail. :)
No disagreements that speaking is helpful either. This discussion is more about what learning method is optimal, what will reduce frustration and keep a student from getting discouraged and generate the most sustainable results. Comprehensible input is not just a hypothesis - it has been proven time and again and beaten all other learning methodologies.
All Steve is trying to say is that if FLUENCY is the goal, then at the EARLY stages, all the benefits of output can be had from just a small dose each week - while the vast majority of time is spent on input. He's not saying output is a waste of time. In fact he says that in the later stages, we do need a lot of output.
What you're saying is the same thing that Benny Lewis (fluentin3months.com) advocates for - he focuses strongly on speaking from day one, for all the reasons you mentioned. But all the languages he's *actually* fluent in are those that he spent a long time getting lots of input in with. He hasn't been able to become FLUENT in any language using his own method, and nor have any of his students managed to do so - but it's attractive to newbies because it gives people the illusion of progress.
And I should know, because that's what happened with my Chinese. I drank that kool-aid.
@@mngrwl The most optimal learning method is a comprehensive one that includes textbook learning, "comprehensive input" and production. Fluency in 3 months is absurd unless your idea of fluency is ordering food or telling someone what you did on the weekend. Discussing the latest uptick in the economy then in a heartbeat switching to the political narrative your counterpart wishes to talk about is impossible unless you're autistic and you were gifted with a genius level of language acquisition ability. Naturally, if you live in the country of the 2nd language you're learning, the vast majority of your experience will be one of input simply by dint of the fact that you are immersed in the language which you are surrounded by 24/7. In my experience, that was a cacophony of discordant sounds so foreign to my ear that even the words I had "learned" got obscured by the slew of words drowning them out in, according to Google, the fastest spoken language on the planet. What wasn't difficult was picking up a textbook and learning some vocabulary, rudimentary grammar and some useful phrases for daily life that I could use right away. Having had tasks to perform in daily life, like shopping, vastly improved my ability for recall in terms of producing what I had learned in textbooks. Production expedited my acquisition. Learning is not reading a word for the first time. Learning is absorbing that word or phrase in your mind coupled with the ability to produce it almost immediately. If I'm learning a song on the piano, I can't say "I've learned it", until I can actually play it. Playing expedites learning, mistakes and all.
Subscribed! Thanks!
Just revisiting this debate but I think it is a false debate. Similar to what Steve says they are both critical at different stages and in different amounts. I don't see where Swain dismisses input in her writing, she simply asserts output is important to achieve fluency. Krashen really likes to deride output at times but does concede it can be useful as well. Honestly, some of the best language learners I know are the extreme extroverts who started speaking from day one and never stopped. Other very successful language learners I know studied mostly through input day after day by themselves. Whatever works for you is the answer.
No entiendo señor Kauffman por qué existe semejante batalla entre los defensores del output y el input,¿es que ninguna de las dos partes se da cuenta que cuando uno está hablando con alguien(output)en realidad está escuchando a la otra persona?por lo que también realiza input,yo hablo,y después escucho,y así es como progresamos en nuestras lenguas maternas desde que somos niños.
Steve, what do you think about Luca's new video concerning fluency (ruclips.net/video/6wnbX3Z42EM/видео.html). In case you haven't seen it, you are (implicitly) mentioned in it.
+Arvid Falk I don't agree and will do a video on it.
Steve Kaufmann - lingosteve
Great. Looking forward to it!
+Arvid Falk The video will be up this weekend after we do the transcript
Steve Kaufmann - lingosteve
Thanks for letting me know. I hope it's a nice, long one...
а пожалуй "output" может также быть выписывать дома, одному...?
+Hector Tormos meaningful output is the key. Just talking to yourself is less useful in my experience.
+Hector Tormos Russian is not your native language, right? Let me correct you, if so: А, пожалуй, "output" можно также получать дома. одному... It still sounds a little off (because I am not sure what you were trying to say), but much better than before. Why you used "выписывать" here, anyway? Also, "output"="вывод", "input"="ввод".
If you're native and didn't need any correction, sorry.
+Sergy Orloff Ну, ты видишь? Я написал вывод одному дома, а потом я улучшилось мой русский (благодаря твоим исправления - спасибо большой!)
+Hector Tormos You'r welcome! =) You should work on your inflections, by the way. It is hard part of learning Russian language. What is your native language?
And let's improve your Russian a little more: Ну, видишь, я написал этот комментарий сидя один дома, и всё таки улучшил мой русский (благодаря твоим исправлениям - спасибо большое).
"Вывод" doesn't sound good in your sentence. Probably, because we didn't define the term "вывод" in Russian clearly enough. There are a lot of possible translation for "output" in Russian: www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&s=output&l1=1 I think, you should specify it more. I mean, not just "вывод", but "вывод информации".
+Sergy Orloff Так, спасибо еще раз за вывода информации. Мои родные языки - испанский и каталонский. А конечно русский остается трудно для меня, но стоит хлопот из-за Толстого, и Пушкина, и россиянок, которые обладающие, согласно статистике, самые большие мире сиськи. Кстати, твои английский - очень хорошо
Many "hypotheses'" are overrated ie. commonsense wrapped up in some kind of theoretical analysis, or as you say "splits hairs". Basically input before output is a commonsense approach - as you say, "not speaking at an early stage". In other words, the passive skills of reading and listening at an earlier stage will help support the active skills of speaking and writing at a later stage. I cannot really see how output can also be a kind of input-related process, as Merrill implies.
On another point, when a language learner is speaking in class, language teachers may or may not correct the learner while they are giving output. I'm not quite sure which is best, but I think teachers do feel an obligation to provide instant feedback, however it may influence the train of thought of the learner and distract their attention to form. However, placing emphasis on form when producing language may be beneficial, in my opinion.
Steve, I take both your point and Merrill Swain's. I have a solution that I think reconciles both. It requires a 10 minute or so demonstration that I'd like to share with you if you are interested. My Skype name is: TonyMarshMethod
Hi Tony, I am currently writing an essay about the input and ouput theories and I would like to know more about how they can be reconciled. Let me know if I can contact you on skyp as well. Thank you
What is with this bunch of theories and categorizations of language learning?? So pointless in my opinion. The simple truth is that there cannot be successful language acquisition without input, and likewise without output. It's all one big chunk.
Nobody questions that. The real question is what should be given more time, effort and attention. People don't understand that speaking is IMITATION. In order to imitate something, you need a model, you need to listen to what people say and read what they write. That's why input comes first. There's a silent period in language acquisition during which people can't speak at all. However, teachers force their students to practice speaking as much as possible since day one while not giving them enough input. As a result, people get discouraged and stop learning the language.
@@vladyslavkamynin8121 Certainly, input precedes output in both speaking and writing. That said, try becoming literate in Japanese without output. Also, when one first begins to learn a language, output acts as a corrective agent in that the response you get from your speech can reflect your competence or lack thereof. For example, when I fist moved to Japan, I kept getting two coffees when I ordered one. That acted as a cue and directive for me to review and increase my input of a particular phrase. Yes, input is paramount, but output is also necessary to expedite advancement in language acquisition.
Thank you