Scofield W

Research Article Summary

In John H. Schumann’s theoretical article “Research on the Acculturation Model

for Second Language Acquisition,” he presents a model of how acculturation, meaning

the social and psychological integration of the learner with a target language group,

affects second language acquisition. The model hypothesizes that the more learners

acculturate to the target language group, the more proficient they will become in the

target language. Schumann also provides results of research that have been conducted

and evaluations of the research results on the model.

The vital variable in second language acquisition is acculturation. Based on

Schumann’s view, the acculturation variable can be broken down into social and affective

variables.

Social variables refer to language learning by groups of people. These variables

include seven factors that can affect second language learning. The factors that may

facilitate language learning are: enclosure (the degree of two groups sharing the same

public places), congruence (the similarity between the culture of two groups), attitude

(positive feelings toward each other), and length of residence (the intended length of time

staying in the target-language area). The factors that prevent language learning are: social

dominance pattern (second language-learning group is more powerful than the target

language group), and cohesiveness (the separation of the second language-learning group

from the target language group). The three integration strategies (assimilation,

preservation, and adaption) can either facilitate or prevent the learning of the target
language because the contact between second language-learning group and the target

language group depends on which strategies are chosen.

Instead of referring to groups, affective variables refer to the language learning by

individuals. These variables, influencing acculturation and second language acquisition,

include: language shock, cultural shock, motivation, and ego-permeability. Language

shock means that learners try to speak a second language, but they are afraid that they

will be laughed at. Cultural shock means that anxiety and stress learners face in coping

with new problems in a new culture. Motivation means the learner’s reasons for acquiring

the second language. The motivation can be integrative (becoming part of the target

language group) or instrumental (having better employment opportunities), or both. Ego-

permeability can induce an adult learner’s level of openness to the target language input.

The discussion of social and affective factors leads to the hypothesis that second

language acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation, and the more learners acculturate

to the target language group, the more proficient they will become in the target language.

Schumann presents the results of research conducted on the hypothesis. Four of the six

studies provide counter-evidence to the Acculturation Model, and the other two support it.

Schmidt (1983) presents a case study of a thirty-three-year-old-Japanese artist

named Wes. He socially and psychologically integrated into English speaking community

and developed a high degree of communicative competence, but not necessarily

grammatical competence. The Acculturation Model would predict that he would have

achieved better grammatical proficiency in his spoken language. Stauble (1981) and

Kelley (1982) both used questionnaires to evaluate the social and psychological distance

of foreign speakers. They both found that language proficiency was not positively
associated with the degree of acculturation. England (1982) assessed the degree of

integrative motivation among eighty-four students who had received high scores on the

TOEFL. England found that some of these students were anti-integrative. She concludes

that integrative motivation may not be the only reason for successful second language

acquisition and the claim that acculturation promoting second language acquisition is

inconsistent.

On the other hand, studies conducted by Kitch (1982) and Maple (1982) support

the Acculturation Model. Kitch presents a case study of Mr. Diaz, an adult Spanish

speaker who had one year of formal instruction in English in Mexico and had lived in the

United States for nine years. Kitch found that Diaz had a high degree of language

development. He seemed to have a high degree of social distance and low degree of

psychological distance. Kitch suggests that psychological factors are more important than

social ones. Maple’s goal was to test the hypothesis that social distance does not promote

second language acquisition. One hundred and ninety Spanish students were evaluated.

They completed three questionnaires on social distance. ESL proficiency was assessed

based on their CELS, TOEFL scores and final course grades. Maple concludes that the

findings support the hypothesis that social distance correlates negatively with second

language acquisition.

I am not convinced by Maple’s doctoral research on the Acculturation Model. The

limitation of his research is his way of assessing ESL proficiency. He used only the

subjects’ scores of CELT, TOEFL, and final course grades. Communicative proficiency

and pronunciation skills should also be assessed in language proficiency. Even though

these students received good scores, they may not be good at communicating the
language verbally. My friend Kevin is one of the examples. He started to learn English in

middle school in China. He came to the United States at age of 21 as an international

student. He took the TOEFL and passed it with a decent grade. He started Hunter College

and graduated with a GPA of 3.6. Would I say that Kevin’s English is proficient because

he passed all the exams and had a decent GPA? My answer is “not really” because his

pronunciation and communication skills are poor. When he speaks English, people have a

difficult time understanding him. For example, two or three months ago, we went to Max

Brenner for lunch. The waitress asked what we wanted for drinks. I ordered my orange

juice. Kevin said that he wanted “water.” The waiter did not understand him even though

he said it three times. He finally gave up and just pointed to a glass of water that a

customer had at the next table. Kevin also told me that the interviews he had went terribly

bad because the interviewers also had difficulties understanding him. Therefore, language

proficiency should not be just based on scores.

I also disagree with the hypothesis that learners acquire the target language to the

degree they acculturate to the target language. For instance, my cousin Tong came to the

United States at age 21. He has been in this country for also 11 years and never received

any formal education in the United States, except learning English for a few years in

China. He still speaks fluent and grammatical English. I interviewed him a few days ago

and asked him how he learned English. He thinks that one of the main reasons is that he

watches a lot of American and Chinese TV shows. He occasionally speaks English to his

customers, but most of the time, he speaks Chinese. He only speaks English to my other

cousins when they speak English to him. Tong also told me that he has no intention of

going to college or using English in professional settings because he is happy to work for
the laundro-mat business his family owns. My cousin is also an example of the counter-

evidence to the hypothesis.

Ironically, even though I have almost eight years of formal instruction in English

in the United States, my cousin’s communicative and pronunciation skills are far better

than mine. I have more English speaking friends than he does, and I also have the

intention of being an ESL teacher and speaking standard English to my students. Based

on the model hypothesis, I should have acquired the target language far better than my

cousin, Tong. However, this is not true in real life. He can articulate his thoughts and

express himself almost effortlessly, but I can’t. Something that is really surprising is that

he knows how to flap the phoneme /t/ in words, like “water” and “cutting” even though

he has never been taught. Based on my personal experience, I don’t think there is a big

correlation between acculturation and second language acquisition.

At the end, the author concludes that there is no ultimate answer to the above

hypothesis. However, the research has provided us with some understanding of the

relationship between acculturation and second language acquisition in different contact

settings.
 Word Cited

Schumann, John H. "Extending the Scope of the Acculturaiton/ Pidginization Model to

Include Cognition." (1990): Print.