See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320180886

Contributing Factors toward First and Second Language Acquisition; a

Manifestation of Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis

Conference Paper · September 2015

CITATIONS READS

2 443

2 authors:

Evynurul Laily Zen Aulia Apriana

State University of Malang State University of Malang
17 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Family Language Policy in Indonesia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Evynurul Laily Zen on 03 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Zen, E.L., & Apriana, A. (2015, September). Contributing Factors toward First and Second
Language Acquisition; a Manifestation of Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis. Paper
presented at The 2nd Forum on Linguistics and Literature (FOLITER) UIN Maliki Malang,
Indonesia

Contributing Factors toward First and Second Language

Acquisition; a Manifestation of Krashen’s Affective Filter
Hypothesis

1 2
Evynurul Laily Zen , Aulia Apriana

1
Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
2
Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia

evynurullaily@gmail.com

Abstract
This paper aims at revealing the factors that contribute to children’s language acquisition of either their
first or second language. The affective filter hypothesis (Krashen, 2003) as the underlying framework of
this paper is used to see how children’s perception towards the language input take a role in the process
of acquisition. 25 lecturers in the Faculty of Letters, State University of Malang who have sons or
daughters under the age of 10 become the data source. The data are collected through survey method
and analyzed qualitatively since this paper is attempting to give a thorough description of the reality in
children’s language acquisition. The results show that most children are exposed to the language while
interacting with their family members, especially their mothers. Another factor is children’s interactions
with friends. The languages used by their friends are potential to be acquired by them. These two
factors strongly confirm the core idea of the affective filter hypothesis that children will learn best when
they feel comfortable and are positive about the input they are absorbing. Furthermore, reading is also
one of other minor contributing factors discovering the fact that the books the children like helps them
construct positive perception which then encourage them import more inputs.

Key words: FLA, SLA, Affective Filter Hypothesis

1. Rationale
This paper is an attempt to disseminate the result of the survey-based research conducted to
have a closer look at the mapping of bilingual language situation seen in certain linguistic situation in
Malang. The survey that was conducted to bilingual parents is basically about to satisfy a personal yet
scientific curiosity of the researchers as both parents to bilingual children and language teachers.
Nothing seems really unique from the fact that children in Indonesia are born to be bilingual because,
by nature, they are raised by bilingual parents in bi(multi)lingual situation. On the other hand, there
have been an increasing number of studies that explore the nature of bilingual language acquisition.
Some have seen negative impact of exposing second language to children (Saer, 1923; Smith, 1939;
Bereiter & Engelman, 1966; Godard, 1971; Oller & Eilers, 2002; and Perani, 2003 as cited by Crystal,
2003 and Steinberg, 2001) while some others have proven the positive impact (Bruck, Lambert,
Tucker, 1976; Swain & Lapkin, 1982; Genesee, 1983; Hakuta, 1986; Lapkin, Swain, & Shapson, 1990;
Tarone & Swain, 1995; Yeoman, 1996; Baker & Jones, 1998; and Bialystok, 2001 as cited by Crystal,
2003 and Steinberg, 2001). Looking at various angles by which these previous studies have been
carried out, the socio-psycholinguistic environment of bilingual children in Malang is obviously worth-
researching. One of the focuses of the survey is looking thoroughly at the contributing factors of both
the first and second language development of bilinguals that mainly becomes the concern of this
paper.
 Something really significant to start with is the result of the survey seen from Figure 1 below that
not only 16% of the children of the respondents are raised monolingual, but also 28% of them are
trilingual.

56%

28%
16%

Monolingual Bilingual Trilingual

Linguistic Situation of Children in Malang

Figure 1. Linguistic Situation of Children in Malang

Given this situation, it is convincing to do deeper exploration on what efforts that were exceedingly
working in helping children develop their languages. As suggested by Troike (2006) that children will
never acquire any language knowledge unless that language is used with them and around them. In
other words, there is a strong predisposition that the exposure takes more responsibilities in both the
first and second language acquisition of children. The remaining question is then what kind of
exposure is not only effective, but also successful that in this paper, the researchers aim to use
Krashen’s influential finding on affective filter hypothesis (2003) to elaborate the answer.

2. Methods
The design of this research is descriptive qualitative since it describes the second language
acquisition pattern of some bilingual children from the families of the lecturers in the Faculty of
Letters, State University of Malang, and the exposure strategies that they employ to their children as
parents. The collected data in this research are analyzed qualitatively in order to get a complete
picture of the pattern, instead of generalizing the data statistically.

To collect the data, the instrument needed is questionnaires which are given to 25 lecturers from
the Indonesian Department, English Department, Arabic Department, German Department, and Art
and Design Department who have sons or daughters under the age of 10 years old. Most of these
parents are lecturers of foreign languages with high educational background, some of whom took their
master degree or doctoral degree overseas, which then lead to the use of not only one or two
languages at home, but three, four, or even five languages.

3. Findings and Discussion

The result of the research has put forward two significant factors in the first and second language
acquisition; the major and the secondary. The language used by the family in the family interaction
becomes the major contributing factor as seen in Figure 2 below.
 92%

72%

First Language Second Language

Family Interaction

Figure 2. Interaction among Family

The Figure 2 has articulated the fact that the language of the family members, particularly parents
and siblings has given a considerable impact especially to the development of children first language.
The language(s) spoken by parents themselves while conducting personal communication at home
would most probably be exposed to their children. The language, in this sense is the form, the
meaning, and the function. According to Purwo (1991), it is because children are naturally born not to
simply and passively imitate the adults’ language, but transform it. In a broader sense, the language
input they get exposed to will be productively recycled and reproduced. That is the reason why
bilingual parents as the respondents of this research confirmed that the language of the family has
grown to be the most significant factor of the first language development of their children.
In the context of second language acquisition, the aforementioned finding is arguably in line with
Steinberg (2001) hypothesis on the nature of explication and induction in the acquisition process. The
explication is seen as a conscious effort of parents and/or teachers to introduce the features of the
language to the children, while induction is articulated in different way in which patterns and other
features are acquired through children self-discovery. In correspondence to the result of research
seen from Figure 2 indicating that in the nature of second language acquisition, the language of the
family has taken a lower role compared to the first language. In this very recent point, Steinberg
(2001) argues that the second language is generally exposed outside the house; at schools and
neighborhood.
Apart from supporting either L1 or L2, the language used by the family when talking to children
has long been attracting researchers’ interests; for example Lanza (2001) who studied micro-level of
interaction in bilingual acquisition issuing the language contact and language choice in Parent-
Children conversations and Barron-Hauwaert (2002) who observed the practice of OPOL (One
Person One Language) approach in bilingual family.
The most importantly, the finding of this research suggesting the significant contribution of
language input provided by the family to the development of children language has been recognized
by Krashen (2003) remarking that when children are comfortable, confident, and feel belonged to the
group member, they will absorb the input and make progresses as well. It is the nature of affective
filter hypothesis that Krashen has convincingly proposed before.
The language of the neighborhood that in the context of this research includes friend and
playmate as seen from Figure 3 below has eloquently expressed how affective filter hypothesis
functions in the nature of children language development.

28%

8%

First Language Second Language

Neighborhood Interaction
Figure 3. Interaction among neighborhood

The language(s) spoken by friends and playmates functions as an enrichment of language input
especially for children second language as suggested from Figure 3. Children are naturally at ease to
gain more comprehensible input when they are not anxious and do not have low-self esteem
(Krashen, 2003). In a way more precise, Darmojuwono and Kushartanti (2005) have believed that in
multilingual situation, it is very possible for groups of children speaking different languages to meet
and interact that according to Butler and Ritchie (2006) it might possibly both upgrade and degrade
their language proficiency. Apart from the issue of proficiency, Lanza (2001) has highlighted
Schieffelin and Ochs (1986) theory on language socialization that the linguistic knowledge and social
knowledge occur simultaneously soon after infants have social contact. By having interactive process,
they become active participants especially in internalizing the features of language of their
surroundings. And by getting involved in socialization practices, children learn to be a part of a
community that at the same time learn to use the community’s language. In this point, Krashen’s
affective filter hypothesis works in the way that when children feel positive about their friends,
playmates, and surroundings, they will also be positive about the language input the surroundings
bring.

The research has also mapped the secondary contributing factors in the first and second
language acquisition. The figure 4 below illustrates the finding.

42%

28%
20%
10%

Watching TV Reading Watching Caretakers

(playing) video
Secondary Contributing Factors

Figure 4. Secondary Contributing Factors in FLA & SLA

There are mainly 4 (four) factors that contribute to the development of both first and second
language. Reading is the most influential factors, according to the respondents. Krashen (2003) has
long been examining the impact of reading in developing children language(s) that the one who read
more, she/he can complete a variety of tests in addition to the fact that children with a good reading
habit are said to acquiring more comprehensible input in low-anxiety situation. Krashen and his team
have investigated the massive vocabulary improvement experienced by bilingual children who were
asked to read a novel in their second language. This basic principle in language acquisition has been
adopted as in-school free reading activities, such as sustained silent reading and extensive reading
programs as an effective way to particularly improve second language proficiency.
In a way more detailed, reading works on the basis of what Krashen (2003) has mentioned as the
pleasure hypothesis. This notion justifies that children will learn best through interesting and
motivating activities that goes in line with affective filter hypothesis. According to Field (2003), reading
covers two cognitive processes; lower and higher level processes. The first is decoding words and
their meaning as well as recognizing old and new word meanings, while the second is correlating the
content of the reading with background knowledge, extracting explicit and implicit messages,
interpreting the writers’ purposes, and constructing general idea of the whole text in the reading.
There are plenty of complex stages in reading that when children are involved in the activity, they are
actually exposed to both form (structure) and function (use) of the language. In short, reading helps
children develop their language and cognition.
The second and third most significant factors as seen from Figure 4 are watching TV and
watching and/or playing video (games). The finding has a close connection to the types of language
input that Field (2003) has defined it as iconic (visual) and echoic (audio) in which the first one
 generally lasted for only 0.5 seconds, while the second lasted longer, 0.25 seconds. It implies that
when children watch TV and/or play video games, they import both iconic and echoic input as well as
use it. By engaging children in the TV program they like and audiovisual games, they are exposed to
the comprehensible input in which both the affective filter hypothesis and the pleasure hypothesis are
working really effective. However, the need to maintain interactive exposure is undeniably important.
To conclude, for any situation, both major (the language of the family and the language of
neighborhood) and secondary (reading, watching TV, watching (playing) video, and caretakers’
language) contributing factors must go hand in hand on the basis of principles of affective filter
hypothesis for the purpose of helping children acquire the language(s) best.

4. Conclusion and Suggestion

Based on the results of the survey, most Indonesian children are actually competent to be
simultaneous bilinguals because they are naturally born and grown up in a very rich multilingual
society. Not only are they exposed to two languages by nature, which are their ethnic group language
and Indonesian, they are also competent to be early multilingual if their parents come from two
different ethnic groups. Moreover, since most of the parents of the children who become the subjects
are lecturers of foreign languages, those children become more potential to be exposed to the
languages taught by their parents. This is relevant to the second finding of this survey on the
exposure strategies received by the children, which reveals that most of the exposure to the
languages is received at home. After that, those children are also exposed to some other languages
through their interaction with friends. Besides, they can also acquire some new languages from
books, television, and video games, and also caregivers. This finding strongly confirms the role of
affective filter hypothesis (Krashen, 2003) that both first and second language will develop optimally
when children are comfortable and confident to receive the input. The hypothesis also suggests the
finding that when children feel positive about their surroundings, they will, at the same time, be
positive the language spoken.

The result of this research mainly suggests future researchers that they can enlarge the scope of
the research which include a larger number of respondents with more varied socio and educational
background in order to reveal some new hypotheses.

5. References
Butler, Y.G & Hakuta, K. 2006. Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition. Dalam T.K. Bathia &
W.C. Ritchie (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism. (114-144). UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Crystal, D. 2003. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language: Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Darmojuwono, S & Kushartanti. 2005. Aspek Kognitif Bahasa. Dalam Kushartanti dkk (Ed.), Pesona
Bahasa. Langkah Awal Memahami Linguistik. (15-31). Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Field, J. 2003. Psycholinguistics; a Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge.
Krashen, S.D. 2003. Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Purwo, B.K. (1991). Perkembangan Bahasa Anak: Pragmatik dan Tata Bahasa. In Soenjono
Dardjowidjojo (Ed.), Linguistik Neurologi. ( 157-188). Jakarta: Lembaga Bahasa UNIKA Atma
Jaya.
Lanza, E. (2001). Bilingual first language acquisition: A discourse perspective on language contact in
parent–child interaction. In Cenoz, J. and Genesee, F. Trends in Bilingual Acquisition Research
Volume 1. Philadelphia: John Benjamin.
Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Steinberg, DD., Nagata, H., Aline DP. (2001). Psycholinguistics: Language, Mind, and World. Second
Edition. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Suzanne Barron-Hauwaert. (2004). Language Strategies for Bilingual Families: The One-Parent-One-
Language Approach. New York: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

View publication stats