Factors Influencing Second Language Acquisition

Social and Cultural Factors

English Language Learners come to school with different linguistic, social and

cultural behaviors that are often mistaken for developmental deficits. This results in a

referral for language assessment and/or assessment for special education services. The

assumption is that the student has an intrinsic problem with learning that requires

remediation before school learning can begin (Figueroa & Garcia, 1994). To avoid falsely

identifying students as language disordered, clinicians need to develop an awareness of

and sensitivity to the child’s background and the cultural practices of the child’s family

and ethnic group (De Montfort Supple, 1996; Langdon, 1996; Roseberry-McKibbin,

1994).

Langdon (1996) identified three contextual variables that most influence the

acquisition of English for Hispanics. The use of these variables: the social, the family

and the instructional context, as broad categories provides a useful framework for

consideration of social and cultural issues that can easily be generalized to other

populations of English Language Learners.

Factors to consider in the social context include society’s attitude toward

immigration, bilingual education, and English language learners. While the attitude of the

larger society is an important influence, the attitudes present in local schools and

communities also influence how students view their language and culture (Langdon,

1996). When the home language and culture are viewed as inferior to that of the majority

culture, students quickly become aware of this (Du Montfort Supple, 1996). Such
devaluation of the home language can be a factor in arrested language development in the

native language (Schiff-Myers, 1992).

Factors to consider in the family context are numerous. The parents’ proficiency

in English and the native language, the parents’ level of formal education, and the

demands imposed by the parents’ occupations all play a role in the parents’ involvement

with their child’s education. Many parents are unable to help their children with formal

education tasks as they lack the language or academic skills to do so. The demands

imposed by the parents occupations may also limit the time they have available to interact

with their children or with school personnel about academic concerns (Langdon, 1996).

The family’s sociocultural status is also an important issue to consider. Langdon

(1996) states that students from middle class backgrounds are more successful at

acquiring the majority language “…because schools tend to reinforce practices followed

by the parents” (P.44). However, when bilingualism results from necessity rather than

choice, as is the case when immigration occurs due to political or economic necessity,

socioeconomic factors are usually present. Under these circumstances, (Du Montfort

Supple, 1996).

The match between the school-language discourse and home-language discourse

and the amount and type of verbal interaction that occurs within families is another

important issue (Langdon, 1996). The family’s communicative expectations of the

student and the extent to which the parents’ interactional styles match those of the

academic setting influence the child’s success in an academic setting (Langdon, 1996;

Pena, Quinn, & Iglesias, 1992).

education and believe that bilingualism and biculturalism are assets, they tend to become

bilingual and bicultural more easily (Langdon, 1996). Conversely, a family that intends

to return to the homeland may not view bilingualism and biculturalism as necessary and

may not encourage or promote the students’ mastery of English (Schiff-Myers, 1992).

When considering factors in the instructional context, the following factors are

worthy of consideration: the language of instruction for the student, the student’s

relationship with the teacher, the teacher’s attitude toward ELL students, the student’s

opportunities for interaction with native speaking adults and peers, and the instructional

strategies employed by the teacher (Langdon, 1996). Langdon states that

Students from diverse linguistic backgrounds learn English best when teachers

use these strategies: good communicative skills such as clear instructions and

feedback on the students progress; a positive attitude toward the children and

close contact with their parent and families; and a nonauthoritative interaction

style. Communication in the classroom setting should be enhanced through

meaningful activities with opportunities for hands-on projects and small group

interaction with opportunities for students’ verbal exchange and negotiation

(p.48).

Finally, cross-cultural communicative competence involves understanding and

ease with the culture as well as competence in the language (Cheng, 1996). Cheng states

that “a thorough understanding of the meaning of language, its different aspects, and the

factors that influence language and interaction (such as tradition, role definition, folk-

belief) is necessary for those attempting to learn a second language or becoming

with the culture, does not necessarily mean adoption of the culture. A student who has a

learned a second language will use it when appropriate “…but behave culturally as

learned as part of the first language” (Du Montfort Supple, 1994, p. 4).

Linguistic Factors

Language Proficiency

Before beginning an assessment, a determination must be made as to the child’s

primary language and the child’s dominant language. The two are not necessarily the

same. The child’s primary language as the language the child first learned to speak in the

home. The child’s dominant language is the language in which the child is most

comfortable and most proficient at present. The child’s primary language can be

established through a parent interview. The child’s dominant language is usually

established through an assessment of English language proficiency by a specialist in

English as a Second Language (Roseberry-McKibbin, 1994).

Although one might assume that the purpose of determining language proficiency

is to determine the appropriate language for assessment, assessment in only one language

would provide an incomplete picture of the child’s language skills (Umbel, Pearson,

Fernandea, and Oller, 1993). Roseberry-McKibbin (1994) stated that “Language

proficiency should be assessed primarily to ensure that a child’s lack of progress is not

due just to low or developing English skills”(p.81). She further stated that “a language

disorder is defined as a child’s underlying inability to learn and process any langauge

adequately. This disability will be manifest in both languages, as the child’s language

learning ability is inadequate for the learning of any language” (p. 81).
 A common misconception regarding language proficiency is that an English

Language Learner’s mastery of conversational skills is an indication that all aspects of

the English language have been mastered. Such an assumption may lead to the erroneous

belief that an English Language Learner has an academic deficit (Cummins, 1994).

Conversational skills are cognitively undemanding and contextually embedded,

that is, supported by meaningful interpersonal and contextual cues. Conversational skills,

therefore, develop relatively quickly compared to academic functions of language. On

the other hand, academic language is context-reduced, depending primarily, even

exclusively at times, on linguistic cues. Therefore, “successful interpretation of the

message depends heavily on knowledge of the language itself” (Cummins, 1994, p.11).

Students, therefore, may exhibit temporary difficulties, which can be mistaken for

academic learning problems.

References

De Montfort Supple, M. (1996). Prologue: Beyond bilingualism. Topics in

Language Disorders, 16(4), 1-8.

Langdon, H. (1996). English language learning by immigrant Spanish speakers: A

United States perspective. Topics in Language Disorders, 16(4), 38-53.

Pena, E., Quinn, R., & Iglesias, A. (1992). The application of dynamic methods

to language assessment: A nonbiased procedure. The Journal of Special Education, 26

(3), 269-280.