Indonesian EFL Journal, Vol.

2(2) July 2016 AISEE

p-ISSN 2252-7427 e-ISSN 2541-3635 The Asso ci atio n of Indones ian
Scho lars of Engli sh Educatio n

THE ACCULTURATION MODEL OF SECOND LANGUAGE

ACQUISITION: INSPECTING WEAKNESSES AND STRENGTHS
Alireza Zaker
Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
Email: alireza.zaker@gmail.com

APA Citation: Zakir, A. (2016). The acculturation model of second language acquisition: Inspecting
weaknesses and strengths. Indonesian EFL Journal, 2(2), 80-87

Received: 26-05-2016 Accepted: 24-06-2016 Published: 01-07-2016

Abstract: Previous research has highlighted the significant impact of culture on learning a
second language (L2). Accordingly, culture is now believed to be a major learning-affecting
factor which, along with linguistic competence, facilitates the process of L2 learning. Some
have proposed that being surrounded in the L2 environment gives one a better chance of
learning an L2. Based on this premise, Schumann in 1978 proposed the
acculturation/pidginization model as an environmental-oriented model that emphasizes
identification with a community as the primary requirement of second language acquisition.
This study attempts to take a closer look at different aspects of this theory. The taxonomy of
factors which control social distance is presented along with the different types of
acculturation and the stages/steps of acculturation in an L2 environment. The article
concludes with a discussion on the advantages and shortcomings of the model.
Keywords: acculturation, culture, pidginization, target language environment

INTRODUCTION
Learning a second language (L2) is perceptions, and for assigning value and
now believed to be a multi-faceted meaning in consistent fashion.”
phenomenon which is affected by Differences in intercultural
numerous factors, ranging from internal communication lie partially in the
to social and cultural factors (Hadley, culturally conditioned restraining forces
2003; Nosratinia & Zaker, 2014, 2015; on communication. Such intergroup
Zaker, 2015), and, consequently, many differences can become prominent
studies have highlighted the significant features of social interaction when
impact of culture on learning a second members from different cultures
language (Fromkin, 2003; Zaker, 2016). communicate with each other
Accordingly, culture is now believed to (Macintyre, 2007). When it comes to
be a major learning-affecting factor English language, two major
which, along with linguistic competence, perspectives have been adopted; English
facilitates the process of L2 learning as a lingua franca and a postmodern
(Brown, 2007; Culhane, 2004; Fahim & approach to English, which views it in
Zaker, 2014). Galloway (as cited in hybrid and fluid terms. According to De
Hadley, 2003, p. 88) defines cultures as Costa (2010), the former favors the
“powerful human creations, affording interaction between different cultures
their members a shared identity, a through language whereas the latter
cohesive framework for selecting, acknowledges the existence of World
constructing, and interpreting English.

80
Alireza Zaker
The Acculturation Model of Second Language Acquisition: Inspecting Weaknesses and Strengths

The Acculturation Model the degree of social distance an L2

Many have argued that the degree learner has to the target language
to which a learner is successful in second whereas the psychological variables are
language acquisition (SLA) is dependent, concerned with an individual’s response
to some degree, on how much contact the to the conditions they find themselves in
learner has with the L2 speakers their language learning (Ushioda, 1993).
(Schumann, 1986); therefore, it has been Schumann and other theorists
suggested that being surrounded in the describe social distance as an individual’s
L2 environment gives one a better position or perceived position, in relation
chance of learning an L2 (Culhane, to the target language group, and the
2004). However, the way the first culture extent to which they become part of that
would be affected by this cultural change target language group (Schumann, 1986;
has been the subject of numerous Damen, 1987; Ushioda, 1993; Ellis, 2008;
studies. One famous longitudinal Brown, 2007). Also, Schumann (as cited
investigation was conducted by in Peirce, 1995) talks about social
Schumann on some syntactic aspects distance as being a key aspect to gauge
with six learners (2 children, 2 the amount of acculturation, and hence
adolescents, 2 adults) in which he used how effective a learner is at picking up
questionnaires, observed spontaneous an L2. This distance is not static, but can
conversation during ten months, and be thought of as lying along a continuum
applied a quantitative treatment to the from maximum distance to close
data (Menezes, 2013). proximity to the target language group.
Based on the findings of the above Schumann places both social and
mentioned study, Schumann (1978) affective/psychological factors on similar
proposed the scales, and makes the assertion that a
acculturation/pidginization model, as an learner’s success in second language
environmental-oriented model, which learning is dependent on the amount of
emphasizes identification with a acculturation; the degree to which they
community as a primary requirement of have reduced the social and
SLA. More specifically, Schumann (as psychological distance. Both Brown
cited in Long, 1990) argues that SLA is (2007) and Ushioda (1993) reinforce
just one aspect of acculturation along Schumann’s idea that there is a
with many others. Acculturation, significant and positive relationship
according to Schumann (1986), is the between the depth of the social distance
social and psychological integration of between two cultures and the difficulty
the learner with the target language in learning the L2 for the learner.
group. Schumann further states that any As stated above, the degree of
learner can be placed along a continuum language acquisition, based on this
ranging from social-psychological model, would correlate with the degree
distance to social-psychological of the learner’s proximity to the target
proximity with the speakers of the target group (Farhady, 1981; Jiang, Green,
language (Farhady, 1981). Henley, & Masten, 2009). This point
Schumann’s acculturation seems to have in common with Gardner
hypothesis, therefore, focuses on two and Lambert’s (1959, p. 272) socio-
main variables that account for educational model where they
differences in the way language learners hypothesized that “a strong motivation
approach and acquire language, social to learn a second language follows from a
factors and psychological factors. They desire to be accepted as a member of the
differ in that social variables account for new linguistic community.” This notion

81
Indonesian EFL Journal, Vol. 2(2) July 2016 AISEE
p-ISSN 2252-7427 e-ISSN 2541-3635 The Asso ci atio n of Indones ian
Scho lars of Engli sh Educatio n

has also been captured by concepts such take full advantage of the social situation.
as international posture (Yashima, Schumann in his 1975 article (as cited in
2002), xenophilic and sociocultural Ushioda, 1993) lists five affective factors
orientations (Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, that may increase the psychological
1994), and interest in the target distance. They are:
language and people (Ushioda, 2001). 1. Language Shock: Disorientation
According to Schumann (as cited in caused by learning a new linguistic
Ushioda, 1993), there is a taxonomy of system;
factors which control social distance that 2. Culture Shock: Stress, anxiety and
determine how close an individual will fear caused when entering a new
come to becoming like the target culture, the routine activities
language group. They are as follows: suddenly become major obstacles;
1. Dominance/subordination: 3. Culture Stress: Prolonged culture
Relating to the perceived status of a shock, such as, homesickness, and
group in relation to another; questioning self-identity.
2. Integration pattern: Assimilation 4. Motivation: Instrumental and
(giving up your own lifestyle in integrative; and
favor of another) 5. Ego permeability: The degree to
/acculturation/preservation (how which an individual gives up their
much of your own culture you hold differences in favor of the target
on to); language group.
3. Degree of enclosure of both
groups: Amount that the two Acculturation Types
groups share the same social Schumann’s model distinguished
facilities (low enclosure), or have between two types of acculturation. In
different social facilities (high Type 1, the learner becomes socially
enclosure); integrated, developing social contacts
4. Degree of cohesiveness of second with L2 speakers who provide him with
language learning group: intra input while continuing to retain the
group contacts (cohesive), or inter lifestyle and values of his native culture;
group contacts (non-cohesive); this is similar to Berry’s (as cited in
5. Size of second language learning Culhane, 2004) integration strategy. In
group; Type 2 of acculturation, the learner
6. Degree of congruence of the two develops social contacts in the target
cultures: The culture of the L2 culture and also moves towards adopting
group may be similar or different to the lifestyle and values of the target
the TL group; & language group; this corresponds to
7. Inter-group attitudinal Berry’s (as cited in Culhane, 2004)
evaluations: Positive or negative assimilation strategy. By encompassing
attitudes to each other. both definitions of acculturation, the
model implies that a learner could
The second factor mentioned by succeed in acquiring the target language
Schumann and put forward by Ellis regardless of whether he chose to adopt
(2008), psychological distance, relates to the norms of the target culture or not
how comfortable a learner is in relation (Bluestone, 2009).
to the surrounding social affecting Based on the above mentioned
factors. Psychological distance premise, it can be assumed that
disorientates a learner in a way that may insufficient interaction with and input
cause them to resist opportunities to from target language speakers caused by

82
Alireza Zaker
The Acculturation Model of Second Language Acquisition: Inspecting Weaknesses and Strengths

low acculturation would result in a Monitor model try to lower a learner’s

knowledge base that might contain affective filter, and hence make it
representations of linguistic structure possible for acquisition to take place.
that are not correct by target language Where Schumann and other social
standards (Bialystok & Sharwood Smith, linguists differ to Krashen is in the role of
as cited in Long, 1990). This interaction as a key to success. Krashen’s
phenomenon is known as pidginization model appears to put the learner into
part of this model. This hypothesis states quite a passive role whereas in the
if the social and/or psychological acculturation model the need to interact
distance is great, then, acculturation is and be more active is quite evident
impeded and the learner does not (Mondy, 2007).
progress beyond the early stages of
language acquisition. As result, his/her Acculturation and Motivation
target language will stay pidginized It is Gardener's work on integrative
(Gitsaki, 1998). and instrumental motivation that has
Brown (1980) postulates the been crucial in laying the foundations for
process of acculturation in the target the acculturation model. It is necessary
language natural environment consists of to not only consider the general attitude
four stages: of the learner, but how important they
1. Euphoria: the learners get excited see the need to interact in the target
over the newness of the language and with members of the target
surroundings language culture so that opportunities
2. Culture-shock: emerges as can open up for interaction to take place,
individuals feel the intrusion of thereby reducing the social distance. It
more and more culture differences was Berry (as cited in Culhane, 2004)
into their own images of self and who furthered the idea of motivation
security within a social context with a model of
3. Cultural stress and gradual acculturation attitudes, including the
recovery: some problems of following factors:
acculturation are solved, while  Integration (wanting to maintain
others continue for some time. The their first culture and extend
learner starts to understand the relations with new culture)
differences in thinking. The  Assimilation (wanting to integrate
learner`s problems center around into new culture)
the question of identity; she/he  Separation (wanting to maintain
does not perceive herself/himself their own culture)
as belonging to any culture.  Marginalization (little concern)
4. Full-recovery: adaptation,
assimilation, or acceptance of the The difference between Schumann
new culture. A new identity is and Berry is that both of Schumann‘s
developed. categories assume that there is social
contact between the learner and
The Acculturation Model and Input members of the target culture, whereas
Hypothesis Berry‘s taxonomy allows for the
Krashen’s input hypothesis attests possibility of limited or zero contact
to the advantages of receiving a lot of between groups (Bluestone, 2009).
input, especially in the initial stages in Culhane (2004) discusses different
language acquisition. Both the kinds of motivation, and adds a third
acculturation model and Krashen's category to Gardener’s traditional

83
Indonesian EFL Journal, Vol. 2(2) July 2016 AISEE
p-ISSN 2252-7427 e-ISSN 2541-3635 The Asso ci atio n of Indones ian
Scho lars of Engli sh Educatio n

psychological variables, that of psycho- both careful reading and spontaneous

social motivation. The intercultural speech tasks. However, it should be
interaction model joins together stated that past research has indicated
Gardener’s instrumental and integrative that the optimal acculturation strategy
motivation under the new label of varies greatly by context with regard to
orientation. Culhane (2004) argues that the L2 acquisition practices and learning
Gardener’s two themes on motivation circumstances (Vedder & Virta, 2005).
should be extended to include
assessment of the learner perceptions of Limitations of the Acculturation Model
the importance of using L2 in cultural Although some studies favored the
communities. validity of the acculturation model, like
Learners with a stronger those stated above, Schumann’s theory
instrumental motivation are likely to feel received limited empirical support and
the educational setting alone is sufficient faced strong criticism. As a fundamental
to accomplish their linguistic goals in criticism against the significance of
acquiring the L2. They are expected, cultural factors in SLA, Dash (as cited in
therefore, to make less effort to interact Mondy, 2007) argues that cultural
with members of the cultural group who aspects are quite often, not so readily
use the L2. In contrast, learners with a identifiable, and that individuals may
higher degree of integrative motivation succeed in SLA despite the social
are likely to make more extensive efforts conditions. Moreover, according to
to form bonds with culturally different Mondy (2007), there are some learners
others when given the opportunity, as a that will be determined to succeed,
means of learning the linguistic and irrespective of any of the conditions that
cultural knowledge needed for present themselves, and those learners
sociocultural competence (Culhane, that will not be successful, regardless of
2004). favorable social circumstances. This
implies that individual learner
Contextual Support for the differences, such as learning style and
Acculturation Model affective state are more distinguishable
Lybeck (2002) tested Schumann’s as attributing factors to SLA, than the
acculturation theory via the operable social conditions (Mondy, 2007).
social exchange networks model, which Therefore, we should avoid making
has a postmodern view on using English generalization about the importance of
(De Costa, 2010), with English native cultural factors.
speakers who acquired Norwegian as Another problem with applying the
their L2 and found that those who acculturation model or in talking about
developed positive network connections macro-level group-to-group
with native Norwegian speakers relationships in general, may be that
evidenced more native-like Norwegian these analyses take into account only one
pronunciation than those who had dimension of the many levels of
greater difficulty establishing such. relationships experienced by learners. A
Hansen (1995) measured German- more complete picture may be achieved
born American immigrants’ by including the micro-level effects of an
acculturation on the variables identified individual’s personal social network
in Schumann’s acculturation model and (Bluestone, 2009).
found that acculturation correlated with This model has also been criticized
native-like phonation of successful older- for deliberately excluding other
arrival age speakers that was assessed in potentially important variables (such as

84
Alireza Zaker
The Acculturation Model of Second Language Acquisition: Inspecting Weaknesses and Strengths

cognitive and instructional factors) in believes that the development of a

SLA (Farhady, 1981). According to this typology of variables is important and
model, variables other than acculturation must be continued. It is not clear,
are of minor or moderate importance for however, how long or to what extent the
SLA (Farhady, 1981). For instance, this continuation of such typologies is
model does not provide any explanation necessary (Farhady, 1981).
or insight into the internal processes Research-wise, it has been argued
responsible for the acquisition of an L2. that if acculturation can be considered as
That is, it does not attempt to explain a unique aspect of SLA, it has to be
why there are developmental sequences clearly classified and there needs to be
or acquisition orders, for example, and some ways of measuring the amount of
what causes them (Tavakoli, 2013). acculturation that is necessary for
As another instance, this model successful SLA. The model is
argues that instruction has no important problematic, however, in that the
role in SLA (except for a few exceptional concept of acculturation and what it
cases). In this regard, Schumann (as cited entails is too complex to be operationally
in Long, 1990, p. 31) states: defined and experimentally tested
Educational institutions are really only (Farhady, 1981). Put another way,
free to manipulate teacher, method, although this model acknowledges that
and text variables. I believe that these the degree of social distance between
variables are so weak in terms of the cultural groups can affect language
total language learning situation that learning, it does not provide a means of
no matter how much we attempt to actually measuring social distance. In
change them, we will never achieve addition, because the model deals with
much more success than we are cultural groups rather than individual
achieving now. learners, it is not useful for accounting
Among other criticisms that the for individual differences in learning
acculturation theory received was that outcomes (Bluestone, 2009).
social factors are assumed to have a
direct impact on SLA while they are more CONCLUSION
likely to have an indirect one (Ellis, As stated above, there have been
2008). Also, pidginization is a group many factors assumed to limit and
phenomenon, while language acquisition question the applicability and validity of
is an individual phenomenon. Moreover, the acculturation model; yet, aspects of
the acculturation model fails to explain this model may have significant
how the social factors influence the educational implications for SLA. That is
quality of contact the learners experience why Stern (1983, p. 518) believes this
(Ellis, 2008). Therefore, some people model has given a “better insight into
caution against placing social factors so language learning, designing research
clearly in the forefront as a separate studies, and diagnoses individual
entity. patterns of language learning.” According
Moreover, there remain some to Spolsky (1988), successful L2 teaching
unanswered questions regarding the requires not only the ability to impart
model. Schumann himself states that the grammatical knowledge, but also
model only accounts for language sensitivity to the social realities faced by
learning under conditions of students. Therefore, integrating cultural
immigration. He also cautions the reader instruction in order to increase learners’
about variables other than acculturation cultural tolerance, cultural literacy, and
which may influence SLA. Schumann native culture appreciation not only

85
Indonesian EFL Journal, Vol. 2(2) July 2016 AISEE
p-ISSN 2252-7427 e-ISSN 2541-3635 The Asso ci atio n of Indones ian
Scho lars of Engli sh Educatio n

becomes a priority for L2 instructors but Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language
also for syllabus designers and policy acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
makers. University Press.
Adopting such a context-sensitive Fahim, M., & Zaker, A. (2014). EFL learners’
creativity and critical thinking: Are
perspective might generate higher levels
they associated? Humanising Language
of willingness and motivation among L2
Teaching, 16(3). Retrieved from
learners (Bluestone, 2009). It is also http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jun14/mart
suggested not to consider teachers and 01.htm
language instruction a substitute for a De Costa, P. I. (2010). Let’s collaborate: Using
naturalistic context where personal developments in global English
experience would facilitate cultural research to advance socioculturally-
literacy (Barjasteh & Vaseghi, 2012). All oriented SLA identity work. Issues in
in all, it seems reasonable to argue that Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 99-124.
cultural approximation would not Farhady, H. (1981). On the plausibility of
guarantee the development of SLA; second language acquisition models.
Retrieved September 19, 2014
however, including cultural points in L2
http://mpazhou.ir/wp-
programs can bring about considerable content/uploads/2011/11/On-the-
advantages if enough care and context- Plausibility-of-SLA-Models.pdf
sensitivity is exercised. Fromkin, V., Rodman. R., & Hyams. N. (2003).
An introduction to language.
REFERENCES Massachusetts: Heinle.
Bluestone, K. (2009). Acculturation, Gitsaki, C. (1998). Second language
interpersonal networks, and the acquisition theories: Overview and
learner's sense of self: The effects of evaluation. Journal of Communication
social relationships on second- and International Studies, 4(2), 89-98.
language learning. Working Papers in Hansen, D. (1995). A study of the effect of the
TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 9(2), acculturation model on second
135-164. language acquisition. In F. R. Eckman,
Brown, H. D. (1980). The optimal distance D. Highland, P.W. Lee, J. Mileham & R.
model of second language learning. Weber (Eds.), Second language
TESOL Quarterly, 14(2), 157-164. DOI: acquisition theory and pedagogy (305-
10.2307/3586310 316). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language Jiang, M., Green, R. J., Henley, T. B., & Masten,
learning and teaching (5th ed.). New W. G. (2009). Acculturation in relation
York: Pearson Education. to the acquisition of a second language.
Culhane, S. F. (2004). An intercultural Journal of Multilingual and
interaction model: Acculturation Multicultural Development, 30(6), 481-
attitudes in second language 492. DOI:
acquisition. Electronic Journal of 10.1080/01434630903147898
Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 50- Long, M. H. (1990). The least a second
61. language acquisition theory needs to
Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1994). explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 649-
Motivation, self-confidence and group 666. DOI: 10.2307/3587113
cohesion in the foreign language Lybeck, K. (2002). Cultural identification and
classroom. Language Learning, 44, second language pronunciation of
417– 448. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467- Americans in Norway. The Modern
1770.1994.tb01113.x Language Journal, 86, 174-191. DOI:
Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth 10.1111/1540-4781.00143\
dimension in the language classroom. Macintyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. communicate in the second language:
Understanding the decision to speak as

86
Alireza Zaker
The Acculturation Model of Second Language Acquisition: Inspecting Weaknesses and Strengths

a volitional process. The Modern model to include cognition. TESOL

Language Journal, 91(4), 564–576. Quarterly, 24(4), 667-684. DOI:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540- 10.2307/3587114
4781.2007.00623.x Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of
Menezes, V. (2013). Second language language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
acquisition: Reconciling theories. Open University Press.
Journal of Applied Sciences, 3, 404-412. Tavakoli, H. (2013). A dictionary of language
DOI: 10.4236/ojapps.2013.37050 acquisition: A comprehensive overview
Mondy, S. (2007). The acculturation model: A of key terms in first and second
look into socio/psycho perspectives of language acquisition. Tehran:
SLA. Retrieved September 20, 2014 Rahnama Press.
http://www.osk-ymca-intl.ed.jp Ushioda, E. (1993). Acculturation theory and
Nosratinia, M., & Zaker, A. (2014). linguistic fossilization: A comparative
Metacognitive attributes and liberated case study. Dublin: Trinity College.
progress: The association among Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at
second language learners’ critical university: Exploring the role of
thinking, creativity, and autonomy. motivational thinking. In Z. Dörnyei &
SAGE Open, 4(3), 1-10. DOI: R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and
10.1177/2158244014547178 second language acquisition (93–125).
Nosratinia, M., & Zaker, A. (2015). Boosting Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
autonomous foreign language Vedder, P., & Virta, E. (2005). Language,
learning: Scrutinizing the role of ethnic identity, and the adaptation of
creativity, critical thinking, and Turkish immigrant youth in the
vocabulary learning strategies. Netherlands and Sweden. International
International Journal of Applied Journal of InterculturalRelations 29,
Linguistics and English Literature, 4(4), 317-337. DOI:
86-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.05.006
10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.4p.86 Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to
Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, Investment, communicate in a second language:
and Language learning. TESOL The Japanese EFL context. Modern
Quarterly, 29(1), 9-31. DOI: Language Journal, 86, 54–66. DOI:
10.2307/3587803 10.1111/1540-4781.00136
Schumann, J. H. (1978). The acculturation Zaker, A. (2015). EFL learners’ language
model for second language acquisition. learning strategies and autonomous
In R. C. Gingras (Ed.), Second language learning: Which one is a better
acquisition and foreign language predictor of L2 skills? Journal of
teaching (27-50). Washington: Center Applied Linguistics-Dubai, 1(1), 27-39.
for Applied Linguistics. Zaker, A. (2016). Social constructivism and
Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on the metacognition in an EFL context:
acculturation model for second Inspecting the contribution of critical
language acquisition. Journal of thinking to EFL learners’ social
Multilingual & Multicultural intelligence. Humanising Language
Development, 7(5), 379-392. DOI: Teaching, 18(6). Retrieved from
10.1080/01434632.1986.9994254 www.hltmag.co.uk/dec16/index.htm
Schumann, J. H. (1990). Extending the scope
of the acculturation/pidginization

87