Scribd
Upload
70 views4 pages

Causative Variables in Language Acquisition

Krashen summarizes his theory that comprehensible input and low affective filter are the true causes of second language acquisition, not other factors like age, exposure, or language teaching. He discusses several studies that support this, finding that language teaching helps beginners who lack other input sources, but is less useful for advanced learners who have outside input. Studies show classroom instruction correlates with proficiency when the class provides meaningful input, but not when students have ample outside sources. Krashen also argues age differences in acquisition are due to input access and affective filter levels, not age itself. Overall, the research confirms comprehensible input and affective states as the key factors in second language learning.

Uploaded by

Arpon Hazel Dorona
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
70 views4 pages

Causative Variables in Language Acquisition

Krashen summarizes his theory that comprehensible input and low affective filter are the true causes of second language acquisition, not other factors like age, exposure, or language teaching. He discusses several studies that support this, finding that language teaching helps beginners who lack other input sources, but is less useful for advanced learners who have outside input. Studies show classroom instruction correlates with proficiency when the class provides meaningful input, but not when students have ample outside sources. Krashen also argues age differences in acquisition are due to input access and affective filter levels, not age itself. Overall, the research confirms comprehensible input and affective states as the key factors in second language learning.

Uploaded by

Arpon Hazel Dorona
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

The Causative Variables

After we had discussed the theories of second language acquisition, we arrived at two important
principles:
1. acquisition is more important than learning;
2. in order to acquire, two conditions are necessary.
The first is comprehensible (or even better, comprehend ed ) input containing i + 1 , structures a
bit beyond the acquirer's current level, and second, a low or weak affective filter to allow the input
"in".
According to Krashen, “…comprehensible input and the strength of the filter are the true
causes of second language acquisition.”
LANGUAGE TEACHING: DOES IT HELP?
If acquisition is more central and learning of less use to second language performance and if
comprehensible input and the filter are the essential causative variables for second language
acquisition. The classroom should help only to the extent it supplies comprehensible input in an
environment conducive to a low filter.
Krashen hypothesized “that the classroom should be especially valuable for beginners, those who
cannot easily utilize the informal environment for input. It will be of less value to those who can,
who have other sources of comprehensible input, and who are linguistically advanced enough to
take advantage of it.”
For beginners, language teaching helps when it is the main source of low filter comprehensible
input. For foreign language students who do not have a chance to get input outside the class.
It will be of less help when rich sources of input are available.
If the research literature supports these generalizations, it confirms the generalization that
language teaching helps second language acquisition when it supplies comprehensible input,
which is the true cause of second language acquisition.
Krashen presented different studies that were conducted to help us understand the impact of
different variables and how the true causative variables had been proven to be effective in
language acquisition.
Several aspects were considered to prove Krashen's perspective regarding the true causes of
second language acquisition.
WHEN LANGUAGE TEACHING HELPS
Here, Krashen presented different studies supporting his claim.
Briere (1978) studied 920 native Mexican children, ages four to twelve. The study shows that
the best predictor of Spanish proficiency was attendance in class in the village school
(promotoria). This supports Krashen's hypothesis which means the promotoria was the major
source of comprehensible input in Spanish. This means that the "opportunities to use Spanish to
outside the classroom were not plentiful." Based on the findings, other predictors were the father's
ability to speak Spanish and the parents' need for Spanish.

6
0
Some adult studies show "fairly large positive correlation between the amount of classroom
exposure to the second language and proficiency. Krashen believes that the class was the
primary source of comprehensible input. There were also studies conducted that show "robust
correlation between reported years of formal study and performance on a variety of ESL tests."
Chihara and Oller (1978) mentioned that there was a "substantial correlation between the
length of formal study and second language proficiency. According to Krashen, these studies
show that "the classroom was the main, if not only, source of comprehensible input."
Based on the findings of the different studies, language teaching helps considering the
situations that were presented.
WHEN LANGUAGE TEACHING DOES NOT HELP
Krashen mentions that "not all the research literature concludes that language teaching is good
for second language acquisition." He also added that "students had a rich source of
comprehensible input outside the classroom and were competent enough in the second language
to be able to take advantage of it, i.e. understand."
He presented two studies that support this claim. First, Fathman (1975) reported "no significant
differences in English proficiency between children who had ESL instruction and children who did
not." She hypothesized that children got comprehensible input from the school and playground.
In the study of Hale and Budar (1970), it showed that the group of students who did not attend
formal ESL program made better progress in English. This group who were isolated from speakers
of their own language. They had more comprehensible input "possibly through having to associate
more with English speakers and with other non-native speakers using English as a lingua franca."
According to Krashen, this only confirms that their progress was based on "plus or minus low filter
comprehensible input."
Krashen also pointed out the studies of Uphsur (1968) and Mason (1971) that show "no
significant effects attributable to the number of instructions” received by the students. Krashen
stated that "in both cases, students had a rich source of incomprehensible input outside the
classroom, and in both cases, they were advanced enough to be able to utilize it."
In conclusion, Krashen stated "Language teaching certainly can help. Its primary function is to
supply comprehensible input for those who cannot get it elsewhere, those constrained by their
situation (i.e. foreign language students who do not have input sources outside the class) or by
their competence (those unable to understand the language of the outside world)."
It is less useful for students who have other sources of comprehensible input. The classroom
can also help the intermediate student for "it can supply conscious learning for optimal Monitor
use and give tools to help the acquirer utilize the outside environment more fully for further
acquisition" as mentioned by Krashen.

6
0
Three variables were also presented by Krashen to see how comprehensible input and low
affective Exposure Variable, Age & Acculturation
filter caused second language acquisition.
EXPOSURE VARIABLE
Krashen stated that "Some studies show a clear relationship between the amount of exposure
and proficiency, and some do not." He also mentioned that the true causative variables were
comprehensible input and low affective filter and not exposure variable.
Several studies conducted were based on "length of residence (LOR) in the second language
environment." Fathman (1975) reported that "LOR did predict proficiency for sample of children.
In her study, those who stayed in the United States for 3 years did better than those who stayed
for 2 or 1 year. Walberg et al. (1978) did find a significant relationship between LOR and
proficiency in English as a second language.
While Ekstrand (1976) "found no relationship between LOR and child second language
acquisition proficiency in his study of immigrant children in Sweden. The study also shows that
"LOR effects are not seen unless the children have been in the country for some minimum length
of time (one year?)." Some studies also supported the claim that there was no significant
relationship between LOR and proficiency in English as a second language according to Krashen.
In Krashen's view, “LOR "counts" when there is evidence that it reflects high interaction and
therefore comprehensible input." Krashen also added that "International university students fully
involved in the academic environment" may show high correlation between LOR and proficiency
in second language, "provided a large LOR is examined, since students have access to large
amounts of comprehensible input, both in and out of class."
Another point that was raised by Krashen was "those who say they use second language more
actually acquire more...since use nearly always entails comprehensible input."
AGE
Another variable that was studied was 'age'. According to Krashen, the popular belief
"assumes that age itself is a predictor of second language proficiency, that younger acquirers are
better at second language acquisition than older acquirers.' Krashen argued with this predicament
by saying that "age is not in itself a predictor of second language rate or attainment..." He believes
that still the quantity of comprehensible input and the level of the affective filter were the true
causes of second language acquisition.
Krashen et al. (1979) reviewed the available empirical research on the effect of age and second
language acquisition and concluded that all published studies were consistent with these:
1. Adults proceed through early stages of second language development faster than children
do (where time and exposure are held constant).
2. Older children acquire faster than younger children, time and exposure are held constant.
3. Acquirers who begin natural exposure to second language during childhood generally
achieve higher second language proficiency than those beginning as adults.

6
0
According to Krashen " children are superior to adults only in the long run." He added that
adults have "more conversational competence...it is likely that older acquirers actually get more
comprehended input, and this may be key factor in their fast initial progress." Adults can
participate because of this they may obtain comprehensible input. This only means that age is not
the causative variable but the comprehensible input that can be accessed by the adult learners.
Krashen also points out that the child's superiority in terms of second language acquisition
may be due to the "strengthening of the affective filter at about puberty." This only means that it
is not about the age (whether a child or an adult learner) but based on the affective filter.
ACCULTURATION
Lastly, Krashen mentioned that other proponents suggest that 'acculturation’ is the "major
causal variable in second language" (Schumann, 1978). According to Schumann (1978) “Second
language acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation, and the degree to which the learner
acculturates to the target language group will control the degree to which he acquires the target
language."
Krashen stated that "Acculturation can be viewed as a means of gaining comprehensible input
and lowering affective filter." He explained that "Social integration with resulting contacts leads to
comprehensible input, while the open psychological state Schumann refers to is equivalent to a
low filter."
Krashen also mentioned that "Input can be obtained with acculturation, and there are many
techniques for bringing down the filter that have nothing to do with acculturation."

6
0

Common questions

Powered by AI

Krashen's theory emphasizes that comprehensible input is the primary driver of second language acquisition, positing that formal language instruction is effective only when it provides this type of input in a low affective filter environment. He argues that classrooms are valuable for beginners and those without external sources of comprehensible input, as they cannot normally access the necessary language exposure . Without input outside the classroom, formal settings were shown to correlate with improved language proficiency due to the comprehensible input provided . However, for students who can receive comprehensible input elsewhere, the benefits of classroom instruction diminish .

Krashen's theories suggest that second language curricula should prioritize providing comprehensible input tailored to the learner's current level while creating a low affective filter environment. Practically, this implies incorporating immersive, context-rich language exposure and interactive, communicative approaches over rote learning. Technology can aid in simulating authentic input scenarios for enhanced engagement. Such curricula should balance input-focused activities with providing tools for learners to independently seek and process language input outside formal settings .

While Krashen does not focus extensively on individual variables like motivation or aptitude, his emphasis on the affective filter suggests that such factors might indirectly influence acquisition by affecting emotional receptivity to input. High motivation might reduce the filter, increasing access to comprehensible input, whereas low motivation might enhance it, obstructing acquisition . This interpretation requires connecting affective states to individual differences in learning potential.

Krashen considers acculturation significant insofar as it facilitates access to comprehensible input and reduces the affective filter. Social integration and interaction with the target language community provide opportunities for exposure to language input, while an open attitude towards cultural integration reduces barriers to language acquisition. Acculturation is not the sole method for achieving these outcomes but is an effective means under specific conditions .

The 'affective filter' represents the emotional barriers that can impede the processing of language inputs. A low affective filter allows more language acquisition to occur because the learner is emotionally receptive to linguistic input, interpreting it as comprehensible. Conversely, a high affective filter prevents effective processing of language input. This concept underscores the role of psychology and emotions in facilitating language learning .

Krashen argues that language teaching 'helps' when it serves as a primary source of comprehensible input, especially for those without outside language exposure. Classroom instruction can be tailored to present language at slightly higher than the learner's current level, providing the ideal input for acquisition while maintaining a low affective filter to facilitate engagement and understanding.

Krashen provides evidence such as Fathman (1975) and Hale and Budar (1970) studies, which demonstrate that children in natural environments, or those interacting extensively in a second language community, performed similarly or even better in language proficiency compared to those receiving formal ESL instruction. These findings suggest that comprehensive input obtained outside of traditional classroom instruction significantly supports language acquisition .

Krashen disputes the assumption that younger learners are inherently better at acquiring a second language, focusing instead on the role of comprehensible input and the affective filter. He concludes that while children may eventually achieve higher proficiency if they begin early, adults often progress through early stages faster because they can access more comprehended input due to greater conversational competence. Thus, it is not age per se but the amount of quality input accessible that matters .

Krashen argues that length of residence (LOR) does not inherently correlate with language proficiency as a causative factor because it only influences language learning when it involves significant interaction and comprehensible input. Studies showing mixed results emphasize the importance of active and meaningful communication rather than mere residence duration . For instance, Ekstrand (1976) found no relationship unless children were in the country long enough to facilitate this significant interaction .

Krashen differentiates 'acquisition' as the subconscious process of assimilating language through exposure to comprehensible input, while 'learning' refers to the conscious understanding and knowledge of language rules. His theory posits that acquisition leads to greater language competence and performance compared to learning. This distinction informs his emphasis on providing environments conducive to acquisition, such as through comprehensible input .

You might also like