A discussion of output in second language acquisition

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.

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 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 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 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) 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ... 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... 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... 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