Several surveies have revealed how kineticss in cultural individuality influenced the acquisition of a 2nd linguistic communication ( Graham & A ; Brown, 1996 ; McCarthy, Giardina, Harewood, & A ; Park, 2003 ) . The procedure of linguistic communication larning itself is socially and culturally constructed ( Norton-Piece & A ; Toohey, 2001 ) . How societal formations, single individualities, and readings belonging to a peculiar civilization is important to the development of linguistic communication.
Culture
As defined by Brown ( 2007 ) , civilization is “ the thoughts, imposts, accomplishments, humanistic disciplines, and tools that characterize a given group of people in a given period of clip ” ( p. 380 ) . A more comprehensive definition of civilization developed by Diaz-Rico and Weed ( 2006 ) views it as:
The explicit and implicit forms for life, the dynamic system of normally agreed upon symbols and significances, cognition, belief, art, ethical motives, jurisprudence, imposts, behaviours, traditions, and/or wonts that are shared and do up the entire manner of life of a people, as negotiated by persons in the procedure of building a personal individuality. ( p. 233 )
This definition highlights the fact that civilization is a dynamic, alternatively of inactive procedure and is neither something to be memorized nor a plan that can be encoded to order behaviour. The procedure of larning a new linguistic communication while being immersed in a new civilization involves cultural struggle and rapprochement of that struggle in order to come to footings with the host civilization. Learning a 2nd linguistic communication even demands of an single “ to take on a new individuality ” ( Guiora, 1995, p. 145 ) . As a effect, one ‘s basic sense of ego and assurance in one ‘s abilities are challenged in this procedure of developing a new individuality to get by with the acquisition of a new linguistic communication. This procedure is called socialization, by and large referred to as the act of seting to a new civilization.
Socialization
There have been different theoretical accounts to explicate the function of socialization in the acquisition of a 2nd linguistic communication. Many writers have suggested that socialization need non intend the eradiction of the old civilization itself. Acculturation is “ adapt [ ing ] to a 2nd civilization without needfully giving up one ‘s first civilization ” ( Diaz-Weed, 2007, p. 246 ) . This is contrary to the position that socialization is synonymous to assimilation ( entire soaking up into the new civilization ) or adjustment ( common accommodation of civilizations ) . Absorbing peculiar spheres of a new society does non intend entire resignation of the old or the “ zero-sum trade off ” ( Berry, 1997, p. 34 ) . Degrees of socialization could be in four degrees: integrating ( positive relationship to new and old ) , assimilation ( releasing old, encompassing new ) , segregation ( retaining old, rejecting new ) , and marginalisation ( releasing old and new ) ( Berry, 1997 ) .
Theories on Second Language Acquisition
The earliest research on 2nd linguistic communication acquisition ( SLA ) have been motive surveies which hypothesized that motive is the cardinal factor toward SLA. Founded on the work of Robert Gardner and Wallace Lambert, the relationship of motive and SLA have been helpful in understanding how the societal and cultural environments of L2 scholars shape their attitudes and motives toward the L2, its civilization, and L2 talkers ( Gardner, 1979, 1980 ) . These surveies have pointed out that as a effect, scholars display behaviours which could either promote or hinder their SLA results ( Gardner, 1979 ) . Motivation for larning an L2 is divided by Gardner into two constituents: instrumental and integrative motive. Instrumental motive concerns an person ‘s primary concern for lingual growing, apart from societal ends in SLA ( Gardner, 1979, 1983, 1988 ; Gardner & A ; Lambert, 1959, 1972 ) . Integrative motive refers to an person ‘s willingness and involvement in advancing L2 acquisition through societal interactions with members of the L2 group ( Gardner & A ; Lambert, 1959, 1972 ; Gardner, 1979, 1983, 1988 ) . Instrumental motive is suggested by Gardner and Lambert to hold a primary function in acquisition of the L2, while integrative motive is depicted playing a lesser, back uping function ( Gardner, 1979, 1983, 1988 ; Gardner, Tremblay & A ; Masgoret, 1997 ; Gardner & A ; Lambert, 1972 ) .
Many theoreticians have criticized motive surveies as non sufficiently explicating the function of socialization in SLA. Harmonizing to Brown ( 1980, 2007 ) , 2nd linguistic communication scholars are optimally suited to larn the Culture and SLA 2nd linguistic communication when certain conditions of socialization are met. Specifically, the optimum period is when scholars are in the 3rd phase of socialization and besides see themselves as exterior of both their native civilization and the 2nd civilization.
Schumann ( 1986 ) claims that socialization, or the integrating of the L2 scholar into the mark lingual community, is non a direct cause of 2nd linguistic communication acquisition ( SLA ) , but instead it is the first in a concatenation of factors which consequences in natural SLA. He proposes that “ socialization as a distant cause brings the scholar into contact with TL-speakers and verbal interaction with those talkers as a proximate cause brings about the dialogue of appropriate input which so operates as the immediate cause of linguistic communication acquisition ” ( p. 385 ) . Acculturation ( made up of societal and affectional variables ) is the causal varibale of SLA. That is, if scholars acculturate, they will larn ; if scholars do non acculturate, they will non larn. Acculturation initiates a concatenation reaction including contact in the in-between and acquisition as its result.
Schumann ‘s ( 1986 ) socialization theoretical account includes seven societal variables ( 1. societal laterality, 2. assimilation, saving, and version, 3. enclosure, 4. coherence and size, 5. congruity, 6. attitude, 7. intended length of abode ) and four affectional variables ( 1. linguistic communication daze, 2. civilization daze, 3. self-importance permeableness, and 4. motive ) which presumptively affect the measure and quality of contact that 2nd linguistic communication scholars have with the mark linguistic communication community, therefore impacting SLA. Schumann argues that “ the grade to which a scholar acculturates to the TL group will command the grade to which he acquires the 2nd linguistic communication ” ( Schumann, 1978, p. 34 ) , but he makes his claim merely for the context of natural SLA, i.e. , where larning takes topographic point in the environment where the L2 is spoken and without direct linguistic communication direction ( 1986, p. 385 ) .
Language proficiency and socialization
There has been a famine in empirical surveies that examined the impact of a scholar ‘s grade of socialization on linguistic communication proficiency or acquisition. Extant surveies have nevertheless suggested that socialization and linguistic communication acquisition have a positive relationship.
Socialization is a more important determiner in linguistic communication proficiency than motive or attitudes, as evidenced by Clement ‘s ( 1986 ) survey. Clement ( 1986 ) showed how the interplay of motive, single attitudes and grade of socialization consequence to SLA proficiency in quantitative cross-sectional survey. In a correlational research conducted in a bilingual Canadian university, pupils were asked to make full up questionnaires that assessed ethnolinguistic verve, motive, and attitudes. Furthermore, interviews were conducted among respondents to measure their proficiency in spoken English as a 2nd linguistic communication. Minority group members exhibited more assurance in their accomplishment of talking English as a 2nd linguistic communication and were besides judged to be more adept than members of the bulk group. The degree of socialization measured by the frequence of L2 usage and frequence of contact with L2 talkers was revealed to be functional in linguistic communication proficiency. Motivation and attitudes toward L2 talkers, and L2 civilization were non significantly correlated to linguistic communication proficiency.
Friendships and submergence with native English-speaking people is besides of import in cultivating SLA and proficiency. As shown in Graham and Brown ‘s ( 1996 ) survey in a bilingual community in Mexico, the difference in proficiency among native Spanish talkers in talking English could be a consequence of the varying degrees of their socialization to native English talkers. Using Schumann ‘s ( 1986 ) socialization theoretical account and variables, the grade of socialization was measured among native Spanish-speaking families in Colonia Juarez town. To mensurate linguistic communication proficiency, an unwritten proficiency interview was conducted. Native-like English proficiency among native Spanish talkers was attained merely by those enrolled in bilingual schools. Their registration in the schools proved favourable to their SLA. Furthermore, they developed more positive perceptual experiences about the English-speaking community and developed more intimate friendly relationships with their English-speaking equals ( Graham & A ; Brown, 1996 ) .
Degree of socialization, age, and matrimonial position are besides of import factors in linguistic communication proficiency. Lee ( 2005 ) investigated the relationship of English proficiency and grade of socialization in footings of U.S. media ingestion. The consequences revealed that the usage of Korean linguistic communication over the Internet negatively correlated with socialization. Those that did non utilize English when devouring and take parting in Internet-based communicating were less adept in talking English than those that used English often. Furthermore, younger and individual Koreans were more adept in talking English than older and married Koreans due to their higher degrees of U.S. media ingestion ( Lee, 2005 ) .
Lee ‘s survey is consistent with the findings from Jiang et Al. ( 2009 ) which found that greater grades of submergence in American society leads to higher proficiency in the English linguistic communication. Jiang et Al. ( 2009 ) studied socialization and Enlighs proficiency by analyzing an older Chinese-English population. Correlational analyses revealed a strong relationship between the grade of submergence in the dominant society and proficiency in unwritten English. Nevertheless, while talking proficiency was found to be correlated with socialization, speech patterns were non.
