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
