This phrase just occurred to me.
What kind of system do you associate the word “input” with? Is it a machine, an animal, or a national economy?
Can we really equate reading and listening with “input?”
Sure…each field of study has its own terminology (borrowed, usurped, and/or shared). The word “input” happens to be a word that language learners/polyglots employ.
Incidentally, I like your title for this thread. Analogies are fascinating poetical devices; what’s more “analogy” can be deployed to illustrate “analysis”.
analogy is a process of connecting, or trying to connect, one idea with another idea. Analysis is the process of breaking a concept into its constituent parts. After doing an analysis of the meaning of these two terms I see no analogy here.
@tora Can we really equate reading and listening with “input?”
Is there any other kind of language input you can think of? If you hear or read something, it goes into your brain. It is language input.
Question 1: If you are reading a poem aloud, are you just in the process of receiving “input?”
Is only “silent” reading regarded as reading as the process of receiving “input?”
Question 2: If you are speaking, you can hear what you are speaking. If you cannot hear what you are speaking, you cannot correct your Freudian slips. Is only speaking without listening considered to be language “output?”
I suppose that speaking without listening would be possible only if you were a dictator. (This is a joke, of course.)
Can we really equate reading and listening with “input?”
Is speaking without listening considered to be the only form of language “output?”
Toro, I think that silent reading, text w/audio, and listening are input because you are engaged in the process of receiving information. When you’re speaking, you are processing all kinds of info that you can recall (or not) and “outputting” it. I really like what Khatzumoto (AJATT) says about output: “Output is where you show off.”
Oops, I spelled your name incorrectly! Pardon, Tora-san. 
I believe that the following scheme or “analogy” is too simple and inaccurate. Thank you, Yvette.
Input(=listening and reading) → A person → Output(=speaking and writing)
Ok, so you think that “Input (=listening and reading) → A person → Output(=speaking and writing)” is inadequate. Question: What do define as input and output? Here’s a link to an interesting article:
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/about/newspubs/news/ViewNews.aspx?id=2455&newslabel=hn
I just tried the link, but it’s a no-go. Look for the article in New Stories entitled : “Revolutionary Approach to Learning Languages”
Or, paste the entire link in your browser.