IFUGAO STATE UNIVERSITY

College of Education
Nayon, Lamut, Ifugao

LESSON V:
THE CAUSATIVE VARIABLES IN SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION

In Fulfillment of the Requirements for

Principles and Theories of Language Acquisition and Learning

Presented by
Group IV:

Humiwat, Deliza Mae M. | Introduction Manuel, Khyle Yvone D. | When

language teaching does not help
Naila, Rushel C. | Language Teaching:
Does it help? Manacdol, Katris P. | Exposure Variables
Humakey, Janery H. | When language Mahhig, Kristelle Kaye G. | Age
teaching helps
Lumaho, Irizza Mae N. | Age
Madarang, Reymarine L. | When
Laroco, Rasheed Carl P. | Acculturation
language teaching does not help
Intugay, Brian James D. | Acculturation

Presented to
Ms. Cedra Binalet

January 2024
INTRODUCTION

The previous lesson talked about the theories of second language (L2) acquisition where
they tackled about acquisition and learning distinction, the natural order hypothesis, Monitor
Hypothesis, Input Hypothesis and Affective filter hypothesis.

In this lesson, we will discuss the causative variables presented by Krashen and analyze it
using the previously mentioned Input Hypothesis and Affective filter hypothesis proposed by
the same author.

These causative variables include the language teaching, exposure variables, age and
acculturation. By tackling these, we will better understand the variables that influence second
language acquisition which will help us in teaching and learning a language.

OBJECTIVES

By the end of this lessons, the students are expected to;

a) discuss the different L2 causative variables,

b) analyze these variables using the comprehensible input and low affective filter, and

c) know how these causative variables affect second language acquisition.

THE CAUSATIVE VARIABLES

Our review of second language acquisition theory thus far can be summarized as follows:

1. Acquisition is more important than learning.

2. In order to acquire, two conditions are necessary. The first is comprehensible (or even
better, comprehended) 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”.

This is equivalent to saying that comprehensible input and the strength of the filter are
the true causes of second language acquisition. Other variables may relate to second language
success, that is, we may see positive correlations between other variables and measures of
achievement in second language, but in all cases in which language acquisition is attained,
analysis will reveal that the relationship can better be explained in terms of comprehensible
input plus filter level.

In this section, we will perform such an analysis, looking at several factors that have
been shown to relate to success in second language acquisition. We will see that not only can
they be re-analyzed, but that the comprehensible input + filter explanation helps to solve
some apparent problems and contradictions in the research literature.

We will begin with the effect of language teaching on second language acquisition, then
examine variables relating to exposure (length of residence in the country where the language
is used and reported use of the second language), and then turn to age. Finally, we will
consider Schumann's acculturation hypothesis, to see whether it too can be reanalyzed in this
way.

A. 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. This may indeed be, as mentioned earlier,
its main function.

It seems reasonable to hypothesize 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.

The question then becomes not "Does language teaching help?" but " When does
language teaching help?". A possible answer is this: language teaching helps when it is the
main source of low filter comprehensible input, that is, for beginners and 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.
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
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.

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.”

Despite the fact that these students were in the United States and technically in a second
language and not a foreign language environment, it is likely that, in many cases, they did not
have a rich input source available to them outside the class. First, some had not been in the
country for a long time, their primary exposure to English having been in a foreign language
situation. Second, since these were extension and not regular day-time university students,
there was a strong possibility that many of them were not utilizing English very much in their
daily lives, even though they were living in New York. This is confirmed below, when we
note the lack of a strong relationship found for these same students between length of
residence in the United States and proficiency, and when we examine the effect of instruction
on regular university students who do have a rich source of input outside the classroom. (See
Krashen, Seliger, and Hartnett, 1974 and Krashen and Seliger, 1976, for similar results.)

Chihara and Oller (1978) also report substantial correlations between length of formal
study and second language proficiency, finding a correlation of r = 0.45 for performance on a
cloze test and similar results for other measures. Their subjects were Japanese studying
English as a foreign language in Japan, a clear foreign language situation in which the
classroom was the main, if not only, source of comprehensible input.
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.

B. EXPOSURE VARIABLE

The study explores various exposure variables in second language acquisition,

particularly the relationship between exposure duration and proficiency. While some studies
establish a clear link between the two, others do not. The research suggests that
comprehensible input and a low affective filter are the primary factors influencing language
acquisition, meaning that exposure alone is not necessarily causative. Several studies on
length of residence (LOR) in a second-language environment indicate that it can be a useful
measure, especially for children, as it often correlates with the amount of comprehensible
input they receive. However, this is not always the case, as some children may lack access to
such input despite residing in a foreign country.

Multiple studies support the idea that LOR positively impacts second-language
proficiency in children. For example, Fathman (1975) found that children with longer LOR
performed better in English than those with shorter LOR. Similarly, Walberg et al. (1978)
observed that Japanese-speaking children in the U.S. showed improved proficiency with
increased LOR but also noted a "diminishing returns" effect, where early language gains were
significant, but progress slowed over time. However, not all studies confirm this trend.
Ekstrand (1976) found no correlation between LOR and proficiency among immigrant
children in Sweden, possibly because the median LOR was only 10.5 months, suggesting that
a minimum duration is necessary for LOR effects to become apparent.

Research on adult learners suggests that LOR is beneficial only when it correlates with
high interaction and comprehensible input. University students engaged in academic
environments, where they receive substantial comprehensible input, exhibit stronger
correlations between LOR and language proficiency. Murakami (1980) and Oller et al. (1980)
found significant correlations between LOR and dictation test performance among
international students, though other proficiency measures showed weaker relationships.
Meanwhile, studies of extension students at Queens College showed only modest
correlations, likely because these students had variable exposure to English. These findings
indicate that passive residence in a second-language environment does not guarantee
proficiency gains unless accompanied by meaningful interaction.

Another significant exposure variable is reported language use, which is generally

expected to correlate with acquisition since usage typically involves comprehensible input.
However, studies examining self-reported language use yield mixed results. Some research
finds a clear relationship between reported use and proficiency, while others suggest that self-
reports may be unreliable. Additionally, studies on "time abroad" as an exposure factor show
differing results. Carroll (1967) found that students who spent a year abroad outperformed
those with shorter stays, likely due to their active interaction in the target language.
Conversely, Chihara and Oller (1978) found no strong correlation between time abroad and
English proficiency among Japanese learners, possibly because their time abroad did not
necessarily involve meaningful language exposure. These findings reinforce the idea that
exposure alone is insufficient—interaction and comprehensible input are key factors in
second language acquisition.

C. AGE

It has been popularly assumed that age itself is a predictor of second language
proficiency, that younger acquirers are better at second language acquisition than older
acquirers. It can be argued, however, that age is not in itself a predictor of second language
rate or attainment, and that here too everything reduces down to the quantity of
comprehensible input and the level of the affective filter.

Krashen, Long, and Scarcella (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 three generalization:

1. Adults proceed through the 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 held constant.

3. Acquirers who begin natural exposure to second languages during childhood generally
achieve higher second language proficiency than those beginning as adults.

Thus, it is not simply the case that "younger is better": children are superior to adults
only in the long run.

The explanations for these observed differences that seem most plausible to Krashen
involve input and the level or strength of the affective filter. First, let us consider the older
acquirer's rate superiority (generalizations (1) and (2) above). Scarcella and Higa
(forthcoming) found that younger acquirers actually received "simpler" input in a block
building task, a result that confirms observations made by Wagner-Gough and Hatch (1975),
and that seems to predict greater speed for younger, and not older acquirers. Scarcella and
Higa noted that the older acquirers (adolescents) were better able to regulate both the quantity
and quality of their input. They were better at encouraging speech and at getting the native
speaker to modify it for greater comprehensibility. They could, for example, ask for help,
change the topic, and direct the conversation better. They had, in other words, more
"conversational competence". Thus, despite the simpler input directed at the younger
children, it is likely that older acquirers actually get more comprehended input, and this may
be a key factor in their faster initial progress.

There may be other reasons for the older acquirers' superiority in rate of acquisition.
Adults have means of producing language earlier, of "beating the Silent Period", means that
have nothing to do with natural language acquisition but that may nevertheless help them
participate in conversation and hence obtain comprehensible input.

Krashen hypothesized in earlier papers (see, for example, Krashen, 1981) that significant
Monitor use is only possible after the acquirer has undergone formal operations, a stage in
cognitive development that generally occurs at about puberty (Inhelder and Piaget, 1958).
The availability of the conscious grammar, the Monitor, allows adults to produce formally
acceptable utterances using first language rules repaired by the Monitor, as discussed earlier
in this chapter. While the use of this mode does not require comprehensible input, it helps the
acquirer to talk early, to participate in conversations, and thereby obtain input, at least some
of which will be comprehensible.

Both explanations for the older acquirers' rate superiority reduce to the greater ability of
the adult and older child to obtain comprehensible input. Thus, comprehensible input again is
hypothesized to be the causative variable, and not age per se.

The child's superiority in ultimate attainment has been hypothesized to be due to the
strengthening of the affective filter at about puberty,an event that may also be related to
formal operations (Krashen, 1981). As argued elsewhere, this hypothesis has several
advantages. First, it claims that child-adult differences in attainment are not due to any
change in the "language acquisition device" (LAD) but are due to the filter, a factor that is, in
a sense, external to the LAD. Second, it is consistent with the claim that adults are still
"acquirers", that they retain the natural language acquisition capacity children have. It also
allows for the possibility that some adults can achieve extremely high levels of competence in
a second language and may even be taken for native; it predicts that such "Good Language
Learners" will be, above all, good acquirers, with the ability to obtain a great deal of
comprehensible input with a low affective filter. In many cases, the filter prevents the adult
only from going the last few inches.

D. ACCULTURATION

Schumann’s Acculturation Hypothesis proposes that second language acquisition (SLA)

is largely dependent on the learner’s level of acculturation into the target language (TL)
group. He asserts that acculturation is the primary factor influencing SLA, with learners who
socially and psychologically integrate into the TL community acquiring the language more
effectively. The hypothesis suggests that acculturation facilitates language acquisition by
increasing comprehensible input and lowering the affective filter, making it easier for
learners to process and retain new linguistic information.

Schumann identifies two types of acculturation. Type one involves social integration and
sufficient contact with TL speakers, enabling language acquisition without requiring the
learner to adopt the TL group’s lifestyle and values. Type two is a stronger form of
acculturation, where learners not only interact with TL speakers but also adopt their cultural
norms and values. However, Schumann argues that only type one is necessary for successful
SLA, as mere social and psychological openness to the language is enough to facilitate
learning.

Empirical research supports the Acculturation Hypothesis. Studies like the Heidelberg
project found that foreign workers who had frequent leisure or work-related interactions with
native speakers demonstrated better syntactic performance in German. Similarly, Schumann’s
case study of Alberto, a Spanish-speaking adult in the U.S., showed that limited social
interaction and high psychological distance resulted in poor language acquisition. Alberto’s
restricted exposure to comprehensible input, combined with a strong affective filter, led to a
lack of progress in English proficiency.

Other studies further reinforce the hypothesis. Stauble’s research on three long-term
Spanish-speaking residents in the U.S. found that psychological distance may be a more
critical factor than social distance in SLA. While one subject, Paz, had significant social
distance, her lower psychological barrier allowed her to progress more in language
acquisition. This suggests that a learner’s openness to the TL plays a crucial role, regardless
of the extent of their social interactions.
 While the Acculturation Hypothesis is valuable in explaining SLA in immigrant and long-
term visitor contexts, it has limitations. It does not account for language learning in classroom
settings, where learners may acquire a language without significant social integration. The
comprehensible input hypothesis offers a broader perspective, suggesting that SLA can occur
in various contexts as long as learners receive understandable input and maintain a low
affective filter. Ultimately, acculturation may be one effective means of lowering the filter
and increasing input, but it is not the only path to successful language acquisition. Figure 2.3
attempts to capture the parallel between second language acquisition and the effect of
acculturation.

CONCLUSION

Language teaching is undeniably important in learning a second language, providing

structure and guidance to learners. However, mastering a new language is not just about
memorizing vocabulary or grammar rules—it’s a process influenced by personal and social
factors. Understanding what makes language learning successful helps us see why some
people pick it up more easily than others.

Age plays a key role in how we acquire a second language, as younger learners often
absorb it more naturally, while older learners may take a more analytical approach. At the
same time, acculturation—the process of adapting to a new culture—can make a big
difference. The more someone engages with the language in real-life settings, the more fluent
and confident they become. Learning a language isn’t just about studying; it’s about living
the language.

In the end, learning a second language is a journey that goes beyond the classroom.
While language teaching provides the foundation, real progress comes from experience,
exposure, and adaptation. By understanding the impact of age and acculturation, we gain a
deeper appreciation for how language learning works and how we can make it more effective
for everyone.