Colloquium Series Paper

The Impact of the Native Language on the Acquisition of

Oral Proficiency in Dutch*

Iwan Fauzi
Student Nr. 0821969

[*This paper is a review of Slik’s presentation in a session of Colloquium Series in March 05, 2009
in the Department of Linguistics, Radboud University Nijmegen]
I. Introduction
Second language acquisition has been a major topic of research in linguistics for several
decades. Studies to explain the acquisition of oral proficiency in the second language acquisition
vary from one native language to the others. Slik, for instance—as this paper focused on—
specifically studies many native speakers in Europe on how they acquiring Dutch during they are
called immigrants. In his presentation on Colloquium Series, he entitled his study “The Impact of
the Native Language on the Acquisition of Oral Proficiency in Dutch”. Through his paper, he
presented a case study covering 33 Indo-European First Languages i.e., Albanian, Armenian, 2
Baltic, 7 Germanic, Greek, 6 Indo-Iranian, 6 Romance, and 9 Slavic languages of acquiring oral
proficiency in Dutch.
Some assumption and theoretical background supporting his study, such as studies on
immigrant adjustment have indicated that immigrants face difficulties in acquiring proficiency in
the dominant language of the host country in various degrees, and a migrant’s native language
may play an important role in this process (Chiswick & Miller, 2005). In spite of that, the
background of his study is also supported by the other theoretical perspective in which the role of
the mother tongue receives considerable attention as it is clearly stated in contrastive analysis
(i.e. Lado, 1957; Weinreich, 1953) and studies on cross-linguistic transfer of L1 on L2 (i.e.
Kellerman and Sharwood Smith, 1986; Odlin, 1989). To strengthen his topic choice of why he
chose Indo-European First Languages for his study, it is supported by the theory which stated
that languages that are linguistically closely related to the target language have more in common
with and are in general less difficult to acquire than languages more distant from the target
language (Lado, 1957; Weinreich, 1953). In this respect, since all Indo-European Languages are
linguistically closely related and of course Dutch is one belongs to this group, it is regarded that
those languages can be grouped together into one language family.
As we know that among those languages vary in their lexicon cognates with Dutch, the
other theoretical perspective supporting Slik’s study is that one of the ways to explain the
variation in L2-language skills, is by means of a linguistic distance measure. In specific, L2-
learners with a first language more distant from the target language, are mutadis mutandis
expected to be less proficient in that target language than learners with an L1 more closely
related to the target language (Slik, 2009). Therefore, it is assumed that more cognate the
lexicons between two languages, more easy the target language to be learnt.

1|Page
 The study results two main points which are so-called (1) variation in oral proficiency
“within-language-region-variation” which is explained by learner characteristics, and (2)
variation in oral proficiency “between-language-region-variation” which is explained by country
of origin characteristics and language characteristics (linguistic distance). From the learner
characterisitics, Slik found that there are six variations of migrant’s oral proficiency in Dutch in
which women outperformed men, migrants who were younger at their arrival outperformed
migrants who were older when they arrived, migrants who resided longer performed better,
higher educated outperformed lower educated, migrants who took more lessons performed
worse, migrants who were proficient in an L3 (either English or another L3) outperformed
monolinguals.
Meanwhile, in the perspective of country of origin characteristics Slik draw some points
in his study in which migrants from Islamic countries performed worse than migrants from non-
Islamic countries and migrants from countries in conflict performed worse than migrants from
countries not in conflict. However, if the accessibility of secondary schooling is accounted for,
the former characteristics become irrelevant. In addition, female migrants from Islamic countries
did not perform differently compared to female migrants from non-Islamic countries. In the
matters of linguistic distance measure perspective, the explanative power of the cognate
linguistic distance measure is substantial but the explanative power of the genealogical linguistic
distance measure is less impressive, but still considerable.
The subsequent discussion will compare Slik’s study with some other studies and other
theoretical frames about the impact of the native language on the oral proficiency of second
language acquisition which of course in line with the two main points yielded in his study i.e.,
oral proficiency “within-language-region-variation” and oral proficiency “between-language-
region-variation”.

II. Discussion and Theoretical Review

To discuss Slik’s study, I prefer to divide my review based on his finding category
namely oral proficiency of Dutch by learner characteristics and by country of origin
characteristics.

2|Page
2.1 Reviewed by the learner characteristics
2.1.1 Gender
In his study, Slik found that women outperformed men on the acquisition of oral
proficiency in Dutch. As a matter of fact, some studies proved significant difference between
women and men in learning the second language. In a series of studies, for instance, (Ehrman
and Oxford 1989, 1990; Oxford, Nyikos, and Ehrman 1988; Oxford and Nyikos 1989) which is
summarized by Susan (2001) there are possible differences in the use of learning styles and
language learning strategies by female and male learners. In spite of that, Bacon and Finnemann
(1992) report a similar finding in their self-report study of over 900 students of Spanish at two
large institutions in the United States to the extent that women reported a higher level of strategy
use and social interaction with Spanish. Furthermore, Oxford (in Susan 2001) have investigated
possible differences in the use of learning styles and language learning strategies by female and
male learners. He summarizes that:
"when L2 research has considered gender, it has usually... demonstrated gender
differences in strategy frequency, with women consciously choosing to use
particular sets of strategies more often than men. Women especially tended to use
gereral study strategies, social strategies, affective strategies, and certain
conversational or functional practice strategies more frequently than men across
number of studies, thus usually showing a greater range of frequently used strategy
categories".

The other two studies (Eisenstein 1982; Farhady 1982) also show female superiority in some
aspect of second language acquisition. Therefore, I agree with Slik that women outperformed
men in acquiring the second language.

2.1.2 Age of arrival and length of residence

Age of arrival and length of residence are two among Slik’s hypotheses and both are
attested by the result of his study that migrants who were younger at their arrival outperformed
migrants who were older when they arrived and that migrants who resided longer performed
better. From this result seems to imply that that the younger the migrants and the longer they
reside is the better to their oral proficiency in acquiring Dutch.
There are some studies indeed relating with this issue in acquiring the second language
acquisition. Moyer (2004), for instances, in her/his regression analysis on German acquisition
acquired by the immigrants depicts the following relationship: "the earlier the onset with L2, the

3|Page
more native one's attainment; the longer the residence, the more native one's attainment (though
there are several here who defy those predictions)". In addition, referring to her/his data, Moyer
(2004: 89) states that early exposure is significant tied to duration of instruction--the earlier a
participant begins learning German, the more years accrued of formal instruction (direct and
indirect). From this point of view, Slik's study implicitly seems to strengten Moyer's analysis of
thirties years ago. Meanwhile, Moyer (ibid) also notifies that early learners experience more
direct or overt practice, reinforcement, and feedback aimed at improving language development.
In relation with the length of residence, Moyer's (2004: 90) study also attested that longer
residence implies a spectrum of contexts for formal language experience and specific emphasis
on L2 skill development. In fact, some other linguists have generally considered length of
residence as a measure of the time available for immigrants to have learned the L2. Often, a span
of 5 years (e.g., Johnson & Newport, 1989) or a more generous 10 years (Birdsong, 2005) is
presumed to suffice for the achievement of ultimate attainment in the L2 and so immigrants’ L2
proficiency is presumed to asymptote after this time period. Sociologists and demographers, on
the other hand, have long viewed length of residence in the receiving society as also measuring
immigrants’ extent of exposure to opportunities to learn an L2.
Length of residence might index the ongoing effects of processes of selectivity as well.
Migrants might see little reason to invest in L2 learning if they anticipate returning to their home
country after a short time. Thus, selection processes could also produce a positive relationship
between length of residence and L2 acquisition in cross-sectional studies because migrants who
have been in the country for a longer time have been selected on the basis of motivation or
facility in L2 learning (Lindstrom & Massey, 1994; Stevens, 1994 cited from Stevens, 2006).

2.1.3 Education
Slik’s finding showed that higher educated immigrants outperformed lower educated
ones. To prove this, it should be precisely connected to the migrant’s proficiency level in his/her
native language first. I think it is logic to say the more proficient his/her native language the
more educated s/he is. This is what I relate to Walqui (2000) that stated the one’s level of
proficiency in the native language—including not only oral language and literacy, but also
metalinguistic development, training in formal and academic features of language use, and
knowledge of rhetorical patterns and variations in genre and style—affects acquisition of a
second language. The more academically sophisticated her/his native language knowledge and
4|Page
abilities, the easier it will be for that person to learn a second language. This helps explain why
foreign exchange students tend to be successful in American high school classes: they already
have high school level proficiency in their native language. Hence, migrants’ educational
background also support their proficiency level.

2.1.4 Lessons in Dutch

Lessons in target language (Dutch) proposed in Slik’s hypothesis is one of learner
characteristic category which influence migrant’s oral proficiency of second language
acquisition. In his finding he states that migrants who took more lessons performed worse. As a
matter of fact, I remark a study which support Slik’s finding. Gonzales (2000), for instance,
studies males immigrants in the United States--excluding immigrants from English speaking
countries--dealing with their literacy and oral proficiency in English. In the study, he tests four
skills of migrants' English and compare them with and without schooling factor in acquiring
English (both in literacy and oral proficiency). The results for the literacy regressions show that
schooling does possitively affect literacy. Therefore, schooling is only more important for
literacy skills than for understanding or speaking skills since reading and writing in the target
language are more sophisticated abilities. From the study, it implies that language lesson is more
useful to increase the literacy proficiency than the oral proficiency. In this respect, Sliks’ finding
dealing with this factor is undeniably proved.

2.1.5 Other languages learned

Other language learned, in Slik hypothesis, is one of other factors found to play their part
as well in affecting oral proficiency in Dutch. From the study he found that migrants, proficient
in an L3 (either English or another L3), outperformed monolinguals. I acknowledge this finding
in relation to language distance factor. Cenoz (2001) discussed cross-linguistic influence in
second language acquisition within three or more languages that in relation to language distance
is one of other factors influencing oral proficiency of second language acquisition. He argued
that when L2 is not related to L1 but is closely related to L3 there was greater evidence of
transfer from L3 to L2 than L1 to L2. This was the case, I think, why migrants who have learned
L3 (let’s say English or any other Indo-European languages) outperformed monolinguals in
Dutch. This is due to monolingual migrants who have unparallel language lexicons cannot
transfer their native language to L2. Meanwhile, for those monolinguals who have learned L3

5|Page
which is still in the family of Indo-European languages are not difficult to adapt the linguistic
system to L2 they acquired. It goes without saying, by this reason Slik’s finding is undeniably
attested.

2.2 Reviewed by Country of Origin Characteristics

In the variation of oral proficiency of country of origin-based characteristics, Slik found
that initially migrants from Islamic countries performed worse than migrants from non-Islamic
countries. However, if the accessibility of secondary schooling is accounted for, this
characteristics become irrelevant. I might imply what Slik’s motivation to compare between
muslim and non-muslim immigrants in his study is that, in my opinion, he speculates that more
different the cultures between migrants and the host country more difficult they blend with the
host country’s culture, even with the language.
As we know, the culture of muslim countries is really different with the culture of
western countries. Therefore, cultural identity is also one of the handicaps in mastering of the
second language for migrants of muslim countries. Brown (2000) includes this issue (termed
cultural identity) as an intrinsic factor determining the learners' success in mastering second
language (for an extensive explanation of the SLA process) among the other factors such as
motivation, study strategies, tolerance for ambiguity, and sociocultural support or pressure.
However, this is not a mere conclusion to the case of the migrants’ oral proficiency in
second language acquisition saying that muslim migrants are worse than non-muslim ones. It is
supported by what Slik’s finding that the accessibility of secondary schooling determines the
success of muslim migrants in acquiring Dutch, but I want to add for one condition is that
migrants should have first language schooling in their home countries. Cummins (1981) defines
that in U.S. schools where all instruction is given through the second language (i.e., English),
non-native speakers (migrant students) with no schooling in their first language take seven to ten
years to reach grade-level norms. Immigrant students who have had two to three years of
schooling in their first language (in their home countries) take at least five to seven years to
reach grade-level norms (Cummins, 1981). As a matter of fact, the secondary schooling is
important but the primary schooling in their first language is also the more important to improve
their literacy in the language they want to learn in the host country.

6|Page
 The other issue is related to gender in which Slik found that female migrants from
Islamic countries did not perform differently compared to female migrants from non-Islamic
countries. I actually do not have any idea to support or to state against this finding with
theoretical reasonings since I did not find them yet. However, I just want to speculate that among
females basically there is no difference in language proficiency. This is what I understand from a
perspective of sociolinguistics. According to sociolinguists, Lakoff (1975) for instance, claimed
that women use a number of language features that, collectively, indicate uncertainty and
hesitancy. Therefore, I may remark that there is no essential differences among female in
language in use, even in their proficiency since they are “collectively” indicated having same
features in language in use. Here, I agree with Slik’s finding that there is no significant
difference among migrant females in oral proficiency of Dutch whether they are from muslim
countries or not.
Last, the other characteristic of country of origin which obstructs the second language
acquisition learners is that migrants from countries in conflict performed worse than migrants
from countries not in conflict. Through this characteristics of handicap, I regard it as the anxiety
factor. Migrants who leaved their countries in conflict psychologically still remain the anxiety on
their mind. And, of course they learn the second language in destination countries only for
surviving to communicate with the people around them. I believe that this characteristic of
migrants has low self-esteem in the second language learning situations since they leaved their
countries being tense. In this regard, Ortega (2009: 201) argues that people who may have low
self-esteem to begin with, feelings of vulnerability in L2 learning situations may be particularly
intense. If the threat is unmanageable and anxiety rises, it will contribute to these students’ poor
performance in situations. Considering this, I speculate that it needs more space of time to renew
migrants feeling to norm. And, of course like what Slik found that they succeed to acquire Dutch
after they have the accessibility of secondary schooling. Again, this reflect that the socialization
and familiarity with the environment are able to diminish their tense and feelings of vulnerability
in L2 learning situations.

III. Conclusion
This overview has made clear that not only the first language factor affecting migrants’
oral proficiency in Dutch but there are some other factors as well. As what Slik found the other
factors such as gender, age of arrival, length of residence, education, lesson in Dutch, and the
7|Page
third language learned are attested. In addition, Slik also mentioned the other factors
characterized by the country of origin such as that country of origin is Islamic, that country of
origin was in conflict on arrival, and that country of origin is formerly communistic.
Since not many linguists review the second language acquisition based on the factor of
country of origin, I may remark on this conclusion that instead of such factor Walqui (2000)
broadly defined the contextual factors in second languge acquisition. These contextual factors
can be considered from the perspective of the language (covering language distance, native
language proficiency, knowledge of the second language, dialect and register, language status,
and language attitudes), the learner (covering diverse needs, diverse goals, peer groups, role
models, and home support) and the learning process (covering learning styles, motivation, and
classroom interaction). Some of these factors actually have been reviewed by Slik’s findings.
In this respect, I acknowledge Slik’s study as an undeniably great findings since he
combine some factors of migrant’s background into two main characteristics i.e., learner
characteristics and country of origin characteristics. It goes without saying, the most important to
point out herein is that the larger social and cultural contexts of second language development
have a tremendous impact on second language learning, especially for immigrant students. The
status of students' ethnic groups and religion in relation to the larger culture can help or hinder
the acquisition of the language of mainstream society.

IV. References

Bacon, Susan and Finnemann, Michael. (1992). "Sex differences in self-reported beliefs about
foreign-language learning and authentic oral and written input”. Language Learning 42,
(pp. 471-495).

Birdsong, D. (2005). “Interpreting age effects in second language acquisition”. In J. Kroll & A.
M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp.
109–127). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brown, Douglas. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York : Addison
Wesley Longman, Inc.

Cenoz, Jasone. (2001). Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition:

Psycholinguistics Perspectives. Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (1981). “The role of primary language development in promoting educational

success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A

8|Page
 theoretical framework” (pp.16-62). Sacramento, CA: California Department of
Education.

Eisenstein, Miriam. (1982). "A study of social variation in adult second language acquisition".
Language Learning 32, (pp. 367-392).

Farhady, Hossein. (1982). “Measures of language proficiency from the learner's perspective”.
TESOL Quarterly 16. (pp. 43-50).

Gonzales, Arturo. (2000). "Which English Skills Matter to Immigrants? The Acquisition and
value of four English Skills" in Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the
Official English Movement. Vol. 1, Ed. Gonzales, Duenas Roseann.

Johnson & Newport. (1989). “Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence
of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language”. Cognitive,
21(1), 60–99.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper and Row.

Moyer, Alene Door. (2004). Age, accent and experience in second language acquisition: an
integrated approach to critical period inquiry. Multilingual Matters.

Ortega, Lourdes. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Hodder Education.

London.

Slik, Van der, F.W.P. (2009). The Impact of the Native Language on the Acquisition of Oral
Proficiency in Dutch: The Case of 33 Indo-European First Languages. Colloquium
series. Department of Linguistics. Radboud University Nijmegen.

Steven, Gillian. (2006). “The Age-Length-Onset Problem in Research on Second Language

Acquisition Among Immigrants”. Language Learning 56:4, December 2006, pp. 671–
692 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan.

Susan, Ehrlich. (2001). “Gendering the 'learner': Sexual harassment and second language
aquisition”. In Aneta Pavlenko, Adrian Blackledge, Ingrid Piller, Marya Teutsch-Dwyer
(Eds), Multilingualism, Second language learning, and gender (pp. 76-103). Publisher:
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Walqui, Aída. (2000). "Contextual Factors in Second Language Acquisition" in Eric Digest
Journal. September 2000. Eric Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. California.

9|Page