The Differences Between Flemish Pupils Acquiring English and Walloon Pupils Acquiring English Before the Input of Formal Instruction

The differences between Flemish pupils acquiring English and Walloon pupils acquiring English before the input of formal instruction

Master dissertation Supervisor: Prof. Dr. M. Van Herreweghe Siona Houthuys Master English - Italian Faculty of Literature and Philosophy University of Ghent 2010 - 2011

Preface

I would like to thank my supervisor Professor Van Herreweghe whose assistance and suggestions added considerably to my graduate experience. Secondly, I would like to express my gratitude to Karine van der Borght and Eugeen Forrier who gave me the opportunity to gather my data in „Don Bosco‟ and „Pré vert‟. I would also like to thank all the pupils for participating in my research and filling out the questionnaire and vocabulary test to the best of their ability.

I am grateful to Caroline and Charlotte Lippens for having let me use their questionnaire and test. Special thanks goes to Rian Houthuys for his assistance in my statistical analyses. My thanks go to Men, Johan and Astrid for their patience and willingness to help place me on the right path. Last, but not least, many thanks to my mother and father for their never-ending support and to my brothers and sisters for their listening ear.

Table of contents

Preface ...... 2 Table of contents ...... 3 1 Introduction ...... 6 Part I: Theoretical framework ...... 8 2 English as a global language ...... 8 2.1 English as a global language ...... 8 2.2 English speakers in the world ...... 9 2.3 The position of English in Belgium ...... 10 3 Second language acquisition...... 13 3.1 Native versus non-native language...... 13 3.2 Second Language Acquisition (SLA) ...... 14 3.3 Second language versus foreign language ...... 14 3.4 Acquisition versus learning ...... 15 3.4.1 Krashen‟s Monitor Hypothesis ...... 17 3.5 Instructed versus non-instructed learning ...... 19 3.6 Implicit versus explicit learning ...... 20 3.7 Incidental versus intentional learning ...... 21 3.8 Other important notions and theories on L2 acquisition ...... 22 3.8.1 Child second language acquisition ...... 22 3.8.2 Fundamental Difference Hypothesis ...... 23 3.8.3 The social settings of L2 learning: natural versus educational settings .. 24 3.8.4 Immersion ...... 25 3.9 Learner-external factors and the language learner ...... 26 3.9.1 Input ...... 26 3.9.1.1 Input versus intake ...... 26 3.9.1.2 The effect of input and interaction on acquisition ...... 27 3.9.2 Factors that influence L2 acquisition ...... 30 3.9.2.1 Age ...... 30 3.9.2.2 The Affective Filter Hypothesis ...... 31 3.9.2.3 Motivation ...... 32 3.9.2.4 Aptitude ...... 33 3.9.2.5 Anxiety ...... 35 3

3.9.2.6 The role of the first language ...... 35 3.9.2.7 The various fields of contact with the L2 ...... 37 4 Conclusion ...... 38 Part II: The differences between Flemish pupils acquiring English and Walloon pupils acquiring English before the input of formal instruction...... 40 5 Introduction to the research ...... 40 5.1 Research question ...... 40 5.2 Informants and setting ...... 40 5.3 Methodology ...... 41 6 The analysis of the results ...... 42 7 General finding ...... 43 8 Data and findings ...... 44 8.1 General questions ...... 44 8.1.1 The informants‟ mother tongue ...... 44 8.1.2 Sex ...... 46 8.1.3 Age ...... 47 8.1.4 Informants to a foreign country ...... 48 8.1.5 An English acquaintance ...... 49 8.1.6 Motivational attitudes ...... 53 8.1.7 English courses ...... 57 8.1.8 The conception of English ...... 60 8.1.9 Personal practice ...... 63 8.1.10 The informants‟ conception of their English skills ...... 67 8.1.11 Extracurricular activities ...... 70 8.2 English television programmes ...... 78 8.2.1 Subtitled English TV programmes (SP) ...... 78 8.2.2 English television programmes without subtitles (not subtitled programmes = NSP) ...... 80 8.2.3 English TV programmes or Dutch/French TV programmes ...... 81 8.2.4 Dubbing or subtitling ...... 85 8.3 Computer ...... 88 8.3.1 The amount of time spent on the computer ...... 88 8.4 Music ...... 92

8.4.1 English music or Dutch/French music ...... 92 8.4.2 Do the informants understand the English songs? ...... 94 9 Conclusion ...... 96 10 Bibliography ...... 100 11 Appendix ...... 103 11.1 Questionnaire (Dutch) ...... 103 11.2 Vocabulary test (Dutch) ...... 116

1 Introduction

For my master dissertation, I investigated the differences between Dutch-speaking and French-speaking children in Belgium acquiring English as a second language. English can be acquired either naturally or through instruction. In my research, I focused on the incidental learning of English, which is before the input of formal instruction, by school children of the fifth and sixth year of primary school. The aim of my investigation was to find out how and where children come into contact with English in their everyday lives and if this contact stimulates the acquisition of a second language (L2 acquisition). Because English plays a major role in popular culture, it would be obvious to state that children acquire English through the exposure to English popular culture, for example television, books, radio, music, computer games, etc. That will probably be the outcome of this survey. Previous research (Caroline Lippens, 2010) found that the main source of influence on second language acquisition is watching English television programmes, listening to English music and playing English games. Cassiman (2005) reported slightly different findings. According to her, watching English television is the major factor influencing L2 acquisition. Other important factors are listening to English music via the radio and searching the Net. Later in this dissertation it will become clear if these results coincide with mine.

Measuring which extracurricular activities play a key role in the informants‟ second language acquisition was one thing. Another was to link this outcome to their actual active knowledge of English vocabulary. This showed in practice whether children being more engaged in English extracurricular activities actually do have a higher productive lexical competence.

I contrastively analysed the acquisition of English as an L2 of 89 Walloons and 81 Flemish 10- to 13-year-old school children. The research consisted of two parts. First the informants had to fill out a list of questions that aimed at getting an overall view on their linguistic background, their attitude towards English, their motivation to learn it at school and the extent to which they are exposed to English in their everyday lives. Secondly, a written vocabulary test was carried out in order to work out their productive lexical knowledge.

The first part of this master thesis is concerned with the theoretical background of my research. The first chapter deals with the sociolinguistic aspect of English. That is, the position of English and its speakers in the world. I expand on the position of English in Belgium and in particular in Flanders and Wallonia. In the second chapter, the psycholinguistic aspect of English is discussed. More specifically, I elaborate on second language acquisition (L2 acquisition). Various key concepts in the field of L2 acquisition are defined on the basis of binary oppositions, such as native versus non- native speakers, second language versus foreign language, acquisition versus learning, implicit versus explicit learning, incidental versus intentional learning and instructed versus non-instructed learning. Additionally, I consider other important notions on L2 acquisition: the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis, child second language acquisition, the concept of immersion, etc. Next, I focus on learner-external factors and more specifically on input and its effect on the learner. I conclude the theoretical framework considering the factors that influence L2 acquisition. I chose to discuss these concepts as they are relevant when examining Flemish and Walloon pupils incidentally acquiring English as an L2.

In the second part, I turn to the discussion of the research question, alongside my informants that participated and the setting in which the fieldwork took place. This is followed by the methodology that was used. Subsequently, I thoroughly analyse the results of the questionnaire linked to the results of the vocabulary test. Finally, I will conclude my master thesis and I will offer suggestions for further research.

Part I: Theoretical framework

2 English as a global language

People travelling a lot must have already noticed that wherever you go on this globe, English is the most common language used to communicate. According to Schneider (2011), „no doubt English is truly the world‟s leading language today. It is used on all continents‟ (Schneider, 2011:2). English is therefore said to be a universalising language. It can be named, among many other labels, a lingua franca. McArthur (2003) defines a lingua franca in terms of English differently from its traditional meaning: „a language common to, or shared by, many cultures and communities at any or all social and educational levels, and used as an international tool‟ (McArthur, 2003:2). In this chapter, I will discuss why English is considered to be a global language. Then, I will deal with the speakers of English around the world. In the final section, the position of English in Flanders and Wallonia is focused on.

2.1 English as a global language

First of all I will give a proper definition of a „global language‟. Crystal (2003) argues that „a language achieves a genuinely global status when it develops a special role that is recognized in every country. [...] mother tongue use by itself cannot give a language global status‟ (Crystal, 2003:3-4). This „special role‟ can be achieved in two chief ways. First, the language can be made the „second language‟ of the country, which means that it gains an official status. It is then used „as a medium of communication in such domains as government, the law courts, the media, and the educational system. To get on in these societies, it is essential to master the official language as early in life as possible‟ (Crystal, 2003:4). Secondly, a language might become the one most likely to be taught in foreign-language teaching, even though it has no official status in the country. „English is now the language most widely taught as a foreign language‟ Crystal, 2003:5).

What makes a global language? Language dominance goes together with „economic, technological, and cultural power‟ (Crystal, 2003: 7). Also, a language becomes an international language because of the political and military power of its people. Crystal (2003) claims that English was „in the right place at the right time‟ (Crystal,

2003:10) during the worldwide explosion of economic developments in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The English language was at the centre of international activity: „By the beginning of the nineteenth century, Britain had become the world‟s leading industrial and trading country. By the end of the century, the population of the USA [...] was larger than that of any of the countries of western Europe, and its economy was the most productive and the fastest growing in the world. British political imperialism had sent English around the globe, during the nineteenth century, so that it was the language “on which the sun never sets”. During the twentieth century, this world presence was maintained and promoted almost single-handedly through the economic supremacy of the new American superpower. [...] And the language behind the US dollar was English‟ (Crystal, 2003: 10). This is a geographical-historical reason for the globalisation of English. There is a socio-cultural explanation as well. „When new technologies brought new linguistic opportunities, English emerged as a first-rank language in industries which affected all aspects of society – the press, advertising, broadcasting, motion pictures, sound recording, transport and communications‟ (Crystal, 2003: 120). At the present time, people „[...] in many developing countries [...] perceive English as the primary gateway to better jobs and incomes, thus a better life‟ (Schneider, 2011:2).

2.2 English speakers in the world

There are several models which classify the world Englishes. The most common categorisation distinguishes between English as a native language (ENL), English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL). ENL „is spoken and handed down as the mother tongue of the majority of the population‟ (Schneider, 2011:30). This is in countries such as the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. ESL, on the contrary, „is spoken in countries where English is an important and usually official language, but not the main language of the country‟ (Kirkpatrick, 2007:27). Typically, these are ex-colonies, for example India, Nigeria, Uganda or Malaysia. The third classification of this model regards EFL. In this case, „English is widely taught in the education system, and people strive to acquire it for its international usefulness, but it does not really have any internal functions‟ (Schneider, 2011: 30). English operates as an EFL in Belgium. In Chapter 2, I will

9 further define the notions of ENL, ESL and EFL, but then within the framework of L2 acquisition.

An alternative classification concerns the „Three Circles‟ model put forward by Kachru (1985). In accordance with the previous model, Kachru divides world Englishes into three concentric circles, the Inner Circle, the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle. This model may seem very similar to the ENL/ESL/EFL distinction because the Inner Circle has the same characteristics as the ENL classification. The same holds for the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle, being conceptualised as ESL and EFL. Kachru, however, considers the socio-political an developmental aspect of English. „The three circles represent the types of spread, the patterns of acquisition, and the functional allocation of English in diverse cultural contexts‟ (Kachru 1985, quoted in Jenkins, 2006:15). The English of the Inner Circle is said to be „norm-providing‟, that of the Outer Circle to be „norm-developing‟ and English of the Expanding Circle to be „norm-dependent‟ (Kachru 1985, cited by Jenkins, 2006:16). In other words, Inner Circle speakers determine the English-language norms, while speakers of the Outer Circle are developing their own standards, assuming institutionalised ESL varieties. The varieties of the Expanding Circle have no official status and „therefore dependent on the standards set by native speakers in the Inner Circle‟ (Jenkins, 2006:16).

Both of these schemes are not without problems. Many scholars have criticised that they are somewhat dated and do not reflect how English has changed and developed in many regions over the last years. By means of correction, Schneider (2003, 2007) proposed the „Dynamic Model‟, which „builds upon earlier developmental schemes and argues that emerging varieties of English in postcolonial contexts have typically followed underlying, fundamentally uniform evolutionary process caused by the social dynamics between the two parties involved in a colonization process‟ (Schneider, 2011:33). I will not further explain this model, as it is not significant to my research. The next section discusses the position of English in Belgium and more particularly, in Flanders and Wallonia.

2.3 The position of English in Belgium

Belgium is a trilingual country with Dutch-speaking Flanders in the north, French- speaking Wallonia in the south and a German-speaking minority in the eastern part

10 of the country. Belgium has a complex linguistic situation. Although it has three official state languages, it is not the case that all Belgians are tri- or bilingual. Flemish inhabitants consider French a foreign language, and vice versa. Goethals (1997) applies the „degree of foreign-ness‟ (Goethals, 1997:106). He argues that Flemings frequently come into contact with French words and phrases because they are available on the radio and TV, on food labels, in advertising, etc. Indeed, French is more present in Flanders than for example in Germany or the Netherlands. However, „this does not mean much more than a familiar presence and an opportunity to come into contact with it. It is not a functional part of daily communication‟ (Goethals, 1997:106).

From the 13th century onwards, there have been tensions between the French- speaking part and the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. In the nineteenth century, tensions were brought to a climax when Dutch was threatened to disappear because of the French prestige and dominance. Ultimately, in the twentieth century two sets of laws passed, fixing the linguistic border and the use of languages in education, administration, etc. (Berns et al., 2007:18). Under the current legislation, first foreign language instruction is compulsory in Flanders usually at the age of ten. This first foreign language has to be French. In Wallonia, however, this is optional: pupils can either choose Dutch, English, or German. Overall in Flanders, English is taught in secondary school from the second year on for two or three classes a week. In Wallonia, a second foreign language is optional in the third year of secondary school. (Berns et al., 2007:24-25).

According to Goethals (1997), the knowledge of foreign languages is generally assumed normal in Flanders. He claims that „the relatively little importance of Dutch worldwide and the presence of other languages reinforce the general feeling of a need for several different foreign languages‟ (Goethals, 1997:107). He also posits that „13-year-old Flemish pupils know about 400 English words before even taking a first formal English class‟ (Goethals, 1997:107). Berns et al. (2007) refer to a Eurobarometer report in 1999 which pointed out that „62% of Belgians (age 15 or older and from Flemings and Walloons combined) claimed to be able to carry on a conversation in at least one other foreign language [...]. Forty-one percent claimed to be able to do this in English, 14% in German, and 38% in French, and 3% for Italian and Spanish‟ (Berns et al., 2007:38). Apparently, Belgians are very familiar

11 with the English language. This is of course due to the globalisation of English, already discussed in the previous chapters. English is for example well established and widely available in the Belgian media. Berns et al. (2007) argue that in the Belgian music world, English songs are more popular than Dutch or French songs, and English names for television shows appear to be very attractive (for example Big Brother, Now or never, The Bachelor). „Les Niouzz‟ (pronounced „news‟) is a news programme for teenagers in Wallonia.

It is important however to consider the different media landscapes in Wallonia and Flanders, and particularly the dubbing and subtitling practices. To begin with, the largest difference in their broadcasting system concerns the Dutch and French language. „Each has developed a dual broadcasting system, including two public service channels and several private channels‟ (Berns et al., 2007:31). Next to the national channels, Belgian people can watch programmes from various other European countries. Flanders has five English cable stations (Goethals, 1997:107). According to Berns et al. (2007), „Wallonian viewers, in particular, devote substantial parts of their viewing time to channels from France‟ (Berns et al., 2007:32).

Language dubbing and subtitling are also practiced differently in the two communities. Generally, „the countries that dub English language TV programming and films, and which have comparatively low levels of second language knowledge, consequently have a media landscape that in large part is self-referential. Smaller countries, [...], subtitle films‟ (Berns et al., 2007:32). This is the case for Flanders which broadcasts subtitled films and TV programmes (also in cinemas). Wallonia, in contrast, being part of the Francophone world, prefers dubbing. A possible reason for this is that „Wallonia [...] since the rise of cinema [has] depended to a great extent on French productions. [...] The Francophone market was so important that foreign films of possible interest to the Francophone audience were dubbed in spite of additional costs for doing so‟ (Berns et al., 2007:33). One exception is the RTBF, which occasionally broadcasts the dubbed and un-dubbed version of a foreign film at the same time on different public channels. Berns et al. (2007) claim that only 10% watch the un-dubbed version.

Having compared the position of English in Wallonia and Flanders, I can conclude that both communities absorb English differently in their culture and educational 12 system. On the whole, the Belgian attitude towards English is a positive one. Goethals (1997) observed that Belgian travellers abroad, and particularly Flemings, do relatively well when talking to a foreigner in English.

3 Second language acquisition

In the following sections I will give an overview of basic issues that have been addressed in many different ways within the theoretical framework of second language acquisition (L2 acquisition). Often these issues involve binary choices. I selected those notions which are relevant in relation to my research.

3.1 Native versus non-native language

It appears to be quite difficult to provide a workable distinction between a „native‟ speaker and a „non-native‟ speaker. Basically, native speakers are „those born to the language‟ and non-native speakers „those who learnt it through education‟ (Jenkins, 2003:15). According to Bloomfield (1933) a native language is „one learned on one‟s mother knee‟ and „no one is perfectly sure in a language that is acquired later‟ (quoted in Kirkpatrick, 2007:8). This definition implies that the native language is similar to the mother tongue. He also assumes that the first language learnt will be spoken better than a language acquired later, thus age is a critical factor in language learning. Others have tried to capture the distinction by using other terms: „a mother tongue‟, „a first language‟ versus „a second language‟ versus „a foreign language‟.

Swales, quoted by Kirkpatrick (2007), states that the distinction between the two concepts does no longer make any sense. Kirkpatrick (2007) offers a possible reason why the traditional definitions and terms now appear unsatisfactory: „[…] they were coined by linguists who grew up in monolingual societies where both parents and the community as a whole all spoke the same language‟ (de Bot et al., 2007:9). In reality, monolingual societies are a minority and in multilingual societies the concept of a „native speaker‟ appears useless.

The vast majority of my informants are non-native speakers of English. Their mother tongue is mainly Dutch (the informants from the Flemish school) and French (the informants from the Walloon school).

3.2 Second Language Acquisition (SLA)

SLA is the common term used for both the acquisition of a second language and the study of the discipline. Doughty & Long (2006) define it as a broad term that „[…] encompasses basic and applied work on the acquisition and loss of second (third, etc.) languages and dialects by children and adults, learning naturalistically and/or with the aid of formal instruction, as individuals or in groups, in foreign, second language, and lingua franca settings‟ (Doughty & Long, 2006:3).

They continue defining it as a multi-disciplinary phenomenon: „Researchers enter SLA with graduate training in a variety of fields, including linguistics, psychology, communication, foreign language education, educational psychology, and anthropology, as well as, increasingly, in SLA per se, and bring with them a wide range of theoretical and methodological alliances‟ (Doughty & Long, 2006:3).

3.3 Second language versus foreign language

Just as it is problematic to define a first, second (or third) language, it is also difficult to differentiate between the concepts second and foreign language. According to Ellis (2008) a second language „[…] plays an institutional and social role in the community‟ (Ellis, 2008:6). When a speaker acquires a foreign language, this „[…] takes place in settings where the language plays no major role in the community and is primarily learnt only in the classroom‟ (Ellis, 2008:6). Somewhat confusingly, he further states that „second is not intended to contrast with foreign. Whether you are learning a language naturally as a result of living in a country where it is spoken, or learning it in a classroom through instruction, it is customary to speak generically of „second‟ language acquisition‟ (Ellis, 1997:3).

De Bot et al. (2007) equally state that the term „second language acquisition‟ can be used to cover both types of learning, because they assume that […] the underlying process is essentially the same‟ (de Bot et al., 2007:7). Contrary to Ellis, who distinguishes between the two concepts on the basis of a sociolinguistic dimension, de Bot et al. (2007) treat their distinction on the basis of a spatial dimension: „[…] second language acquisition typically takes place in a setting in which the language to be learned is the language spoken in the local community. […] Foreign language acquisition takes place in a setting in which the language to be learned is not the language spoken in the local community‟ (de Bot et al., 2007:7). 14

The differentiation made by Gass & Selinker (2001) is also treated as a spatial one rather than a sociolinguistic one. Learning a foreign language involves „learning of a non-native language in the environment of one‟s native language‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:5). For example, English as a foreign language is learnt in France, Japan or Spain. In case you are learning a non-native language in the environment of that language, you are learning a second language. For instance, we can think of an Italian speaker learning English in the United Kingdom. Gass & Selinker (2001) further note that people learning in a second language environment have considerably more access to the speakers of the language being learned, while learners in a foreign language environment have not.

Considering the definitions given by Ellis (2008), de Bot et al. (2007) and Gass & Selinker (2001), my informants are acquiring a foreign language. English is not a recognized means of communication in Belgium (Ellis, 2008), and it neither is the language „spoken in the local community‟ (de Bot et al., 2007: 7). However, Ellis (2008 & 1997) and de Bot et al. (2007) would rather name my informants second language learners, since they prefer using the term „second language acquisition‟ as „a superordinate term to cover both types of learning‟ (Ellis: 2008,6).

3.4 Acquisition versus learning

A distinction is sometimes made between „acquisition‟ and „learning‟. Krashen & Terrell (1983) state that „acquiring‟ a language is „picking it up, i.e. developing ability in a language by using it in natural, communicative situations‟ (Krashen & Terrell, 1983:18). It is the „natural way to develop linguistic ability, and is a subconscious process‟ (Krashen & Terrell, 1983:18). In this respect, we can think of children who are not consciously acquiring a language. Moreover, Krashen & Terrell (1983) claim that „the results of language acquisition, acquired linguistic competence, are also subconscious. We are not generally aware of the rules of languages we have acquired.‟ (Krashen & Terrell, 1983:26) When we hear an error we intuitively „know‟ that an error was made, although we may not be able to point out which exact rule was violated. In contrast, language „learning‟ is „knowing about language, or formal knowledge of a language” (Krashen & Terrell, 1983:26). Contrary to acquisition, learning is conscious. The learner knows the rules, he is aware of them and he is able to use them. This conscious knowledge about grammar is called „explicit knowledge‟

(Krashen & Terrell, 1983:26) and is quite different from the knowledge concerning acquisition, which could be termed „implicit‟ (Krashen & Terrell, 1983:26).

Gass & Selinker (2001) clarify how these two knowledge types are used. As said before, „acquisition‟ produces language and the learner focuses „on meaning, not on form‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:199). „Learning‟, on the other hand, performs the function of „inspector‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:199) of the acquisition system. Using the knowledge of the learned system it verifies if the uttered message is either correct or incorrect.

Krashen & Terrell (1983) further argue that language acquisition appears to be more important than learning with regard to the development of linguistic skills and communicative ability. This is only the case if people understand what is being said in the target language. In other words, „incomprehensible input does not seem to help language acquisition. We acquire when we focus on what is being said, rather than how it is said‟ (Krashen & Terrell, 1983:19). Anyway, Krashen, as cited by de Bot et al. (2007) claims „[…] that there are indeed two different mental processes involved in acquisition and learning, but that does not mean that they cannot interact. Learning could be the carrying out of activities that enhance the growth of knowledge, but not all learning necessarily leads to acquisition‟ (de Bot et al., 2007:8).

Smith (1994) and Ellis (2008) in their books use both terms interchangeably. They argue that the terms are practically synonyms of each other. Smith (1994) prefers to distinguish between „acquisition‟ and „learning‟ on the one hand and „development‟ on the other. While „development is the best term as it focuses on the process itself, i.e. as something that happens inside the learner or acquirer‟ (Smith, 1994:11), „acquiring‟ and „learning‟ draw attention to „the locus of development, i.e. the person or persons in which language development is taking place‟ (Smith, 1994:11-12). The only differences between these two terms are in where the focus is on. For instance, if we consider the concept „consciousness‟, we can distinguish between „acquisition‟ and „learning‟ because the latter involves „the conscious intention to learn‟ (Smith, 1994:12). Yet, since we do not exactly know if a learner is acquiring consciously or not, „[…] it is better to look for more neutral terms that exclude these extra notions‟ (Smith, 1994:12). Thus, Smith (1994) regrets the lack of a proper term to express the concept of „developer‟ or „developee‟ which could plainly indicate that the learner is „a 16 place where development is taking place‟ (Smith, 1994:12). Because of the lack of a suitable term, „learner‟ and „acquirer‟ are to be used.

Many other scholars criticise Krashen‟s system of learning and acquisition. One of the objections is mentioned by Gass & Selinker (2001) and has to do with „falsifiability‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:203). Some scholars claim that Krashen does not provide any evidence that learning and acquisition are indeed two different systems. Another objection concerns the classification of those learners who learn a language only in the classroom. They are not able to „pick up‟ information of their target language. Does this mean they would never generate utterances? Ellis (2008) notes that this may be the main problem with Krashen‟s theory: „his insistence that learnt knowledge cannot contribute to the acquisition of acquired knowledge‟ (Ellis, 2008:421).

I agree with Ellis‟ (2008) observation mentioned above. However, I retain Krashen‟s Acquiring-Learning hypothesis an interesting one for my research. My informants are children acquiring English before they are instructed in a formal setting. I do not have to consider their learned system. Thus, the distinction between the acquired system and the learned system is essential for my research. This hypothesis is closely related to Krashen‟s Monitor hypothesis and they are both part of a larger theoretical model; the Monitor Model which was an early and influential model of learning in the second language literature. I will discuss the Monitor theory briefly in the next section, since it was the first and the most central of the five hypotheses that comprised his model.

3.4.1 Krashen‟s Monitor Hypothesis

As stated above, Krashen claims that „learning‟ and „acquisition‟ are two separate knowledge systems in second language performance. The Monitor theory specifies this statement: „conscious learning has an extremely limited function in adult second language performance: it can only be used as a Monitor, or an editor‟ (Krashen & Terrell, 1983:30). An utterance in our second language is produced by the acquired system, and „learning comes into play only to make changes in the form of utterance‟ (McLaughlin, 1988:24).

(Figure from http://tesol-tech-L2 acquisition.wikispaces.com/What+is+SLA+- +Krashen)

Krashen‟s position is „that conscious knowledge of rules does not help acquisition, but only enables the learner to polish up what has been acquired through communication‟ (McLaughlin, 1988:24). Apart from this sole Monitor function of learning, the Monitor use itself appears to be very limited. Krashen & Terrell (1983) specify three conditions in order to use the Monitor correctly:

I. TIME : The second language performer has to have sufficient time „to think about and use conscious rules effectively‟ (McLaughlin, 1988:25) II. FOCUS ON FORM : „Even when we have time, we may be so involved in what we are saying that we do not attend to how we are saying it‟ (McLaughlin, 1988:25). So we need to be attentive to the correctness of our utterance. III. KNOW THE RULE : In order to apply a rule, we have to have an appropriate learnt system. However, „[…] even the best students fail to learn everything presented to them‟ (Krashen & Terrell, 1983:31).

According to McLaughlin (1988), it appears to be rather difficult to demonstrate that these conditions do in fact lead to its application. He argues that Krashen had experienced various failures in attempts to demonstrate the working of his theory. As Krashen (1979) himself put it, cited by McLaughlin (1988), „Again, I do reserve the right to change my hypothesis in the light of new data‟ (McLaughlin, 1988:26).

Despite the difficulties of demonstrating the actual Monitor use in practice, Krashen bases his explanation of adult-child differences in language learning on the Monitor concept: „Formal operations are hypothesized to be responsible for the birth of the extensive conscious Monitor [...]‟ (Krashen, cited by McLaughlin, 1988:28). At issue here is that children are thought to have more competence in a second language than adults, because they do not use the Monitor and thus they are less inhibited to perform. This claim has been subjected to considerable criticism from McLaughlin (1988). However, I will not expatiate on this matter, since it would bring us too far.

3.5 Instructed versus non-instructed learning

It is useful to make a distinction between instructed and non-instructed learning. For example, when a person learns Italian in England, it is difficult for him to come into contact with Italian people or an Italian setting. The main source of input is restricted to the institute or school in which he is taking the language course. According to de Bot et al. (2007) this is „instructed‟ L2 acquisition. On the other hand, when migrants have to learn a local language of the setting they moved into in order to survive, they have to pick up the language by communicating in their environment. This is said to be „non-instructed‟ learning of an L2 language.

Ellis (2008) refers to this distinction with the conception of „naturalistic‟ and „instructed‟ L2 acquisition: a language acquired naturalistically is said to be „learnt through communication that takes place in naturally occurring social situations‟ (Ellis, 2007:6). This is distinguished from instructed acquired language, which „is learnt through study with the help of guidance from reference books or classroom instruction‟ (Ellis, 2007:6).

Klein (1986) notes that a learner in a naturalistic L2 acquisition environment mainly focuses on communication and thus learns incidentally, whereas a learner in an instructed L2 acquisition environment rather focuses on a particular element of the language system. This learner learns intentionally.

According to de Bot et al. (2007), „the English language is typically a language that is acquired in a setting in which there is a combination of instructed and non- instructed L2 acquisition‟ (de Bot et al., 2007:12). This is indeed the case in Belgium. English is taught at school and is also available in many other parts of society, for

19 instance English music, programmes on TV, internet, games, etc. At the time being, my informants are acquiring English only naturalistically in a non-instructed L2 acquisition environment. However, from the second year of secondary school onwards, they will acquire both naturalistically or incidentally and in an instructed way.

3.6 Implicit versus explicit learning

The acquisition/learning distinction reflects the implicit/explicit distinction. According to Schmidt (1994), as cited by Ellis (2008), „implicit learning takes place when the learner has internalized a linguistic feature without awareness while explicit learning involves awareness‟ (Ellis, 2008:449). He uses the term awareness „to refer to whether learners are conscious of acquiring new L2 elements‟ (Ellis, 1997:56). Schmidt corrects himself and offers a „better definition‟ of implicit learning: „learning without any metalinguistic awareness‟ (Ellis, 2008:449). Metalinguistic awareness (different from awareness as noticing) „involves awareness of the processes involved in incorporating intake into long-term memory‟ (Ellis, 2008:449). N. Ellis (1994a:I), as quoted by Ellis (2008) defines „explicit learning‟ as „conscious learning where the individual makes and tests hypotheses in a search for structure‟ (Ellis, 2008:449).

Gass & Selinker (2009) allude to Ellis (1994) who points out that implicit learning „is often based on memory, which in turn is based on hearing/reading particular instances of something‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:209). Conversely, „explicit learning based on working memory is also possible. It might refer, for example, to explicit classroom explanations. [...] What do learners do? They identify patterns in working memory and then store those patterns or rules in long-term memory‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:209).

Paradis (1994, 2001) has a suggestion with regard to the relation between implicit and explicit learning on the one hand and knowledge and acquisition on the other. According to Paradis (1994, 2001), cited by de Bot et al. (2007), implicit learning usually takes place independent of instruction and without awareness of learning something. Moreover, implicit learning „[...] may result as a by-product of explicit learning‟ (de Bot et al., 2007:63): explicit knowledge is a result of instruction and is then used for the comprehension and the production of language. The fact that the

20 learner is able to perceive and produce utterances serves as input for the implicit learning system that receive information from the input. „This implies that what is implicitly acquired may be quite different from what the instruction was about. Explicit knowledge does not become implicit, but it generates relevant input and output‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:209). He further explains that explicit metalinguistic knowledge is used for editing and controlling the output and of course will see to generate more correct utterances, which in its turn serves as input for implicit learning.

DeKeyser (2006) explains the concepts by linking them to the „inductive/deductive‟ dimension. He states that traditional rule teaching leads to both deductive and explicit learning. Learning is inductive and explicit when learners find rules for themselves by studying examples in a text. A third possibility is „when children acquire linguistic competence of their native language without thinking about its structure‟ (DeKeyser, 2006:314), they learn in an inductive and implicit way. Less obvious is the remaining fourth possibility of learning; the combination of deductive and implicit.

Another related and much debated distinction in the L2 acquisition literature is the one on incidental versus intentional learning.

3.7 Incidental versus intentional learning

I will start with an example to explain the difference between both concepts. When a learner reads a book and does not take the trouble to look up a word that he or she does not know in a dictionary, but some passages later realises what that word means, then „incidental‟ learning has taken place. If a teacher orders a learner to read a book and look up the words he or she does not understand, then the learning is said to be „intentional‟.

Basically, „intentional‟ learning refers to „[...] the deliberate committing to memory of thousands of words (their meaning, sound, and spelling) and dozens of grammar rules‟ (Hulstijn, 2006: 349). According to Schmidt (1994) „intentionality‟ points at whether a person decides consciously and deliberately to learn some second language knowledge. Most researchers connect incidental learning with the learning of vocabulary by means of reading. This view can be attributed to Krashen (1989) who,

21 in the context of his Input Hypothesis, claims that we enlarge our second language knowledge of spelling and vocabulary through reading. This can only take place if the input is comprehensible, i.e. the meaning of words is clear.

„Incidental‟ learning, on the other hand, takes place when a learner „picks up‟ words and structures, „[...] simply by engaging in a variety of communicative activities, in particular reading and listening activities, during which the learner‟s attention is focused on the meaning rather than on the form of language‟ (Hulstijn, 2006:349).

De Bot et al. (2007) quote Schmidt (1990) who relates the distinction to the concept of „noticing‟ and to the question „whether such noticing is automatic or requires attention‟ (de Bot et al., 2007:10).

3.8 Other important notions and theories on L2 acquisition

This section deals with some notions that are relevant for my research: child second language acquisition, the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis, the social settings of L2 learning: natural versus educational settings and immersion. First, it is important to define child L2 acquisition because in a way it differs from adult L2 acquisition. The difference between child L2 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition is then further explained in the next chapter discussing the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. Thirdly, we will take a look at the various social settings of L2 learning. My informants learn English as an L2 in a natural setting, and will over a period of two or three years experience the L2 in both natural and educational settings. Finally, the notion of immersion is concentrated on. My Walloon informants are learning Dutch in an immersion programme. This stimulates their interest in languages other than their native language, including English.

3.8.1 Child second language acquisition

Child second language acquisition is defined as „acquisition by individuals young enough to be within the critical period, but yet with a first language already learned‟ (Foster-Cohen 1999, cited by Gass & Selinker, 2006:100), or „successive acquisition of two languages in childhood‟ (McLaughlin 1987, cited by Gass & Selinker, 2006:100). Gass & Selinker (2006) argue that these definitions lack the notion of „simultaneous acquisition of two (or more) languages in childhood‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2006:101). It is important to separate simultaneous acquisition from 22 sequential acquisition, because different processes and contexts are involved. Selinker et al. (1975) equate adult second language acquisition with non- simultaneous child second language acquisition. Much depends on the social setting in which the learner is involved. McLaughlin (1978) argues that children who have no contact with friends of the target language, there is language transfer in the child second language acquisition. If, on the contrary, „the child has target language peers, then there is a greater social context where the child recapitulates the L2 rules as if the L2 were an L1 with no language transfer occurring‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2006:101). However, McLaughlin (1976) does not deny that children occasionally rely on L1 structures if the L2 structures are too complex. He concludes that regardless of age „[...] both L1 and L2 learners use the same strategies in learning a second language‟ (McLaughlin, cited in Gass & Selinker, 2006:102).

The issue on whether younger is better is discussed in the next chapter (2.8.2) which deals with the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis.

3.8.2 Fundamental Difference Hypothesis

Various assumptions exist on the idea that adults and children differ in using the mechanism for second language learning. The most extended elaboration of this idea is formulated by Bley-Vroman‟s (1988) Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. Bley- Vroman (1988) states that „children use Universal Grammar and domain-specific learning procedures, while adults draw on native language knowledge and general problem-solving systems‟ (Bley-Vroman, cited by DeKeyser, 2006:334). In other words, adults do not have access to UG, but they draw the knowledge of language universals from their native language. Thus, „the learner constructs a pseudo-UG, based on what is known of a native language‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:176).

Gass & Selinker (2001) further distinguish three differences concerning the language learning by adults and children. Firstly, adult L2 learners already know the full linguistic knowledge of their native language. They just have to learn the specific forms of the L2 system used in a given situation. Children, on the contrary, have to learn not only the specific language forms, but also when to use them in different situations. A second difference concerns the concept of equipotentiality, posited by Schachter (1988): contrary to second language learners, a child will learn any language to which he is exposed to; „no language is easier to learn than another; all

23 languages are equally learnable by children‟ (Schachter 1988, quoted in Gass & Selinker, 2001:175). Moreover, language relatedness plays an important role in ultimate L2 attainment (Dutch speakers are more likely to learn English than French speakers). If this were not, „we would expect that all learners to be equally able to learn any second language‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:175). Finally, a third difference is about the motivation and attitude toward the second language. Adults appear to be not equally interested and motivated to learn a L2. „Differential motivation does not appear to impact a child‟s success or lack of success in learning language‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:175).

3.8.3 The social settings of L2 learning: natural versus educational settings

Ellis (2008) refers to the term „social setting‟ as „[…] the milieu in which learning takes place. Any one setting is realized through a variety of social contexts‟ (Ellis, 2008:286). Variation in language use and acquisition depends on the kind of setting. I will discuss the distinction between a natural and an educational setting, as the former is applicable to my informants‟ current situation and the latter will be of application in two or three years. Natural settings „arise in the course of the learners‟ contact with other speakers of the L2 in a variety of situations – in the workplace, at home, through the media, at international conferences, in business meetings, etc.‟, educational settings „are traditionally found in institutions such as schools and universities but, increasingly, in computer-mediated environments‟ (Ellis, 2008:288). It is generally assumed that the learning occurring in these settings is different in nature. It is said that informal learning takes places in natural settings. „That is, learning is considered to result from direct participation and observation without any articulation of the underlying principles or rules‟ (Ellis, 2008:288). Also, the learners are less focused on the ultimate attainment of the language because social significance is of decisive importance. Formal settings, on the contrary, is more associated with formal learning. The emphasis is on conscious use of rules and principles and „on mastery of “subject matter” treated as a decontextualized body of knowledge‟ (Ellis, 2008:288).

According to Batstone (2002), the individual learner‟s orientation towards the setting is determinant. He distinguishes between the external and the internal context. The former „consists of the context of the situation. This can be described in terms of such

24 features as the participants, channel, topic, discourse type, and location‟ (Ellis, 2008:288). The „internal context‟ involves the learner‟s attitude towards the external context. This distinction is strongly related to two other types of context: the communicative and learning context. The latter is one where the learner is concerned with the effort to master the L2, whereas the former invites the learner to focus on the meaning of an utterance. This framework clarifies the fact that there is no direct connection between setting and type of learning. „Externally a context may be viewed as a communicative context, but internally it may function as a learning context for a particular learner‟ (Ellis, 2008:288). For example, a Dutch learner of French who lives temporarily in France can use the opportunity to practise specific linguistic items he has studied and thus conscious learning takes place in a communicative natural setting. „Conversely, a context that externally constitutes a learning context may be treated by the learner as a communicative context‟ (Ellis, 2008:288-9).

I will expand on the concept of immersion, because the Walloon school „le Pré Vert‟ offers a Dutch immersion programme for French-speaking children living in Wallonia.

3.8.4 Immersion

De Bot et al. (2007) state that „in immersion, part of the curriculum in schools is taught in the second language, [...]. There is very little teaching of grammar rules, and learning is supposed to result from exposure and use‟ (de Bot et al., 2007:79). According to Siegel (2006) „the immersion programs are found in coexisting L2 or external L2 situations. The L2 is used as the medium of instruction for all or most content areas, usually beginning early in primary school‟ (Siegel, 2006:195). It is worth mentioning that teachers are bilingual and modify the course content to make it more understandable.

The concept of immersion was developed in Canada in 1972 with Canadian French immersion programmes. In this program, native English speakers (members of a majority group) were taught through the medium of French (the language of a minority group). According to Ellis (2008), this is just one kind of context for which the term „immersion‟ can be used. Ellis (2008) cites Johnson & Swain (1997) who try to solve the problem of giving an appropriate definition to the term. They determine several key features of immersion programmes:

1. „The L2 is the medium of instruction. 2. The immersion curriculum parallels the local L2 curriculum 3. Overt support for the L1 exists 4. The programme aims for additive bilingualism [...] 5. Exposure to the L2 is largely confined to the classroom 6. Students enter with similar (and limited) levels of proficiency 7. The teachers are bilingual 8. The classroom culture is that of the local L1 community‟ (Johnson & Swain 1997, cited by Ellis, 2008:308).

Genesee (1984, 1987) and Swain & Lapkin (1982) conclude that in general total immersion does better than partial immersion, and also that early immersion is more effective than late. However, immersion programmes are generally shown to be very successful in conveying the L2. Many reasons can account for this. First, Krashen (1985) underlines the effectiveness of this method because learners are exposed to comprehensible input through the instruction of understandable subject matter. Ellis (2008) provides a social reason, claiming that „the learners‟ L1 and their ethnic identity is not threatened, so it is easy for the learners to adjust to the immersion setting‟ (Ellis, 2008:309).

My Walloon informants learn Dutch as an L2 in an early and also partial immersion programme. They have an open attitude towards the acquisition of an additional language, and this not only towards Dutch, but also towards English.

3.9 Learner-external factors and the language learner

3.9.1 Input

3.9.1.1 Input versus intake

According to Smith (1994) the most common meaning of „input‟ in language acquisition research is „[...] language data (utterances, texts) which the learner is exposed to: that is, the learner‟s experience of the target language in all its various manifestations‟ (Smith, 1994:8). Ellis (1997) defines „input‟ as an external factor that language learners receive, i.e. „the samples of language to which a learner is exposed‟ (Ellis, 1997:5). He specifies „the various manifestations‟ referred to by Smith (1994):

„Input can be non-interactive in the form of texts that learners listen to or read. Alternatively, it can arise out of interaction, as when learners participate in conversations‟ (Ellis, 2008:205).

Most researchers agree that input is the main source of information for language learning, but the learner does not process every utterance to which he is exposed to. The availability of the input data does not automatically mean that the learner registers the incoming information: some level of attention is required. As de Bot et al. (2007) put it: „not all input becomes intake‟ (de Bot et al., 2007:8).

Intake can thus be defined as „that part of input which has actually been processed by the learner and turned into knowledge of some kind‟ (Corner, quoted by Smith, 1994:8). This ties in with what Krashen says about the distinction: „Intake is, simply, where language acquisition comes from, that subset of linguistic output that helps the acquirer learn language‟ (Krashen, quoted by McLaughlin, 1988:39). De Bot et al. (2007) claim that new information has to contain a certain degree of relevance in order to be incorporated in the learning system. They refer to „intake‟ as „information that strengthens existing knowledge, or it may fill a gap in knowledge that was noticed by the learner before‟ (de Bot et al., 2007:9).

3.9.1.2 The effect of input and interaction on acquisition

Gass et al. (1998), as cited by de Bot et al. (2007) argue that „[...] input is most effective in learning when it is part of interaction, and not when the learner is simply exposed to spoken or written text. What matters is the involvement of the learner in the interaction, the intention to understand what is said, and the contribution to the interaction in a meaningful way‟ (de Bot et al., 2007:176). Various theoretical positions on whether and how input and interaction affect L2 acquisition can be identified. I will limit my discussion to four broad approaches relating to the role of input/interaction in L2 acquisition offered by Ellis (2008).

a. The Frequency Hypothesis

As formulated by Hatch & Wagner-Gough (1976) the frequency hypothesis „states that the order of L2 acquisition is determined by the frequency with which different linguistic items occur in the input [...]‟ (Ellis, 2008: 242). N. Ellis (2002) confirms

27 the effect of frequency input on L2 acquisition and argues that „frequency is thus the key determinant of acquisition because “rules” of language [...] are structural regularities that emerge from learners‟ lifetime analysis of the distributional properties of the language input‟ (Ellis, 2008:244). However, Ellis (2008) concludes that input frequency alone cannot explain L2 acquisition; it serves as one of the factors influencing development.

b. The Input Hypothesis

This second approach focuses on the relationship between comprehensible input and acquisition. Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis (1983) states that „[...] we acquire (not learn) language by understanding input that is a little beyond our current level of (acquired) competence‟ (Krashen & Terrell: 1983:32). To put it more formally, when an acquirer understands input of a stage i + 1 (i.e. a stage more advanced than the current level of the acquirer‟s competence), then L2 acquisition takes place. Larsen-Freeman & Long (1991) add that „the unknown structures are “understood”, the necessary precursor for acquisition in Krashen‟s model, through world, previously acquired linguistic knowledge, and in a classroom, by these means and such devices as pictures, tranL2 acquisition and explanation. Linguistic and conversational adjustments also play a role here‟ (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991:242).

Two major points of criticism are formulated against the hypothesis on the grounds that it fails to prove that comprehensible input [...] „causes acquisition‟ (Ellis, 2008:248-9) and „[...] is necessary for acquisition‟ (Ellis, 2008:251).

Krashen supports his theory on the basis of four concepts. Two of them are caretaker speech and foreigner talk. The former entails the simplified speech of caretakers (mothers, fathers and others) when they talk to children (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). The latter stands for „the modifications native speakers make when talking to non- native speakers‟ (Krashen & Terrell, 1983:34). Krashen believes these notions to be helpful for language acquisition. A third evidence for the hypothesis is the „silent period‟ in child L1 and L2 acquisition. The period of „silence‟ points at the attention the child is paying to the speech addressed to him or her, before he or she produces it. The fourth argument states that „the comparative studies, [...], show a general

28 superiority for any “input-based” method over any production-oriented method‟ (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991:140).

Long (1983b) adds three supportive arguments to the previous four. These are: (1) „the superiority of immersion over F/SL programmes, (2) „the lack of an effect for additional out-of-school SL exposure for children in immersion programmes, (3) „non-acquisition without comprehensible input‟ (Long, cited in Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991:141).

c. The Comprehensible Output Hypothesis

The third approach stresses the importance of the role of the output in interaction and acquisition. This theory is advanced by Swain (1985, 1995) as a complement to Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis. Studies of immersion programs in Canada had shown that comprehensible input alone does not suffice for the learners to achieve „[...] high levels of grammatical and sociolinguistic competence‟ (Swain, quoted by Ellis, 2008:260). She assumes that „production [...] may encourage learners to move from semantic (top-down) to syntactic (bottom-up) processing. Whereas comprehension of a message can take place with little syntactic analysis of the input, production forces learners to pay attention to the means of expression [...]‟ (Swain, quoted by Ellis, 2008:260).

d. The Noticing Hypothesis

The last approach considers the notion of consciousness in relation to input. Schmidt‟s Noticing Hypothesis states that „the allocation of attention is the pivotal point at which learner-internal factors (including aptitude, motivation, current L2 knowledge, and processing ability) and learner-external factors (including the complexity and the distributional characteristics of input, discoursal and interactional context, instructional treatment, and task characteristics) come together. What then happens within attentional space largely determines the course of language development, including the growth of knowledge [...], fluency [...], and variation‟ (Schmidt, 2001, quoted by Ellis, 2008:265-6).

To conclude, Young (1988b) claimed that „there is still a great deal of beating the bush‟ (Young, cited by Ellis, 2008:274) in the survey of input and interaction

29 influencing acquisition. However, in the years since Young we got a clearer idea of the complex relationship. It has become apparent that there are different kinds of input and interaction facilitating acquisition: the concepts of input frequency, comprehensible input, input/output. And still, this list is not complete. Many other studies have contributed to the research in the role of input/interaction in L2 acquisition. I limited my discussion to just four of them.

3.9.2 Factors that influence L2 acquisition

It is widely recognized that children with normal abilities in normal circumstances acquire their mother tongue more or less over the same period of time and at the same level of competence. Apparently, this is not the case for second language learners. Some are more successful than others in learning a second language. In this chapter, I will consider various factors that may be responsible for these individual differences. I will however limit my discussion to those factors applicable to my informants.

3.9.2.1 Age

The role that age plays in L2 acquisition has become a major subject of discussion within the field of SLA. Gass & Selinker state that „it is commonly believed that children are better language learners than adults in the sense that young children typically can gain mastery of a second language, whereas adults cannot‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:335). This position ties in with what is claimed in the Critical Period Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, „there is a fixed span of years during which language can take place naturally and effortlessly, and after which it is not possible to be completely successful‟ (Ellis, 2008:24).

There is no consensus on when this critical period starts and ends. One position is referred to as „the unconventional notion of the critical period‟ (Birdsong, cited by Ellis, 2008:24). It states that once performance is decreasing, the critical period comes to an end. This implies that age plays no or a minor role in L2 acquisition. The conventional version of the hypothesis refers to the end of the critical period once performance starts to decline as a result of age. According to this position, „[...] maturation signals the end rather than the beginning of age effects as, once past the

30 critical age, acquisition is blocked for all learners irrespective of whether they are just past it or many years past it‟ (Ellis, 2008:24).

Several studies have investigated on whether or not there is a critical period. Although evidence is mixed, a majority of scholars assume that once past childhood it is difficult, or even impossible, for learners to acquire a native-like proficiency. In spite of this, de Bot et al. (2007) mention that some (very good) learners do reach a native-like level.

Krashen et al. (1979)‟s research adds that „[...] in the earlier stages of L2 acquisition, older learners outperform younger learners, especially where knowledge of grammar is concerned‟ (Krashen et al., cited in Ellis, 2008:20). In addition, Singleton (1989) wrote: „Concerning the hypothesis that those who begin learning a second language in childhood in the long run generally achieve higher levels of proficiency than those who begin in later life, one can say that there is some good supportive evidence and that there is no actual counter evidence‟ (Singleton, quoted by Ellis, 2008:23).

Krashen & Terrell (1983) however state that age in itself does not lead to second language proficiency. According to him, people acquire second languages depending on the quantity of comprehensive input and the level of their affective filters. The next chapter is dedicated to Krashen‟s Affective Filter Hypothesis, because it embodies various other factors influencing L2 acquisition.

3.9.2.2 The Affective Filter Hypothesis

According to Krashen (1982), the affective filter is the main source of individual differences in L2 acquisition. Various affective factors, such as motivation, attitude, self-confidence and anxiety play a role in acquiring a second language.

Krashen (1982) defines the affective filter as „[...] a barrier to acquisition: if the filter is “down”, the input reaches the LAD and becomes acquired competence; if the filter is “up”, the input is blocked and does not reach the LAD” (Krashen, cited by McLaughlin, 1988:51). In other words, when the filter is „up‟ the performer is not motivated, lacks confidence, or is afraid to fail. He does not take an „open‟ position on the input, „[...] even if they understand the message, the input will not reach that

31 part of the brain responsible for language acquisition, [...]‟ (Krashen, cited by McLaughlin, 1988:52). Contrary to this strong affective filter, a low one implies that the acquirer is motivated to learn the target language and is not hindered by feelings of anxiety or a low self-esteem.

The following figure represents the operation of the affective filter:

(Figure from http://www.melta.org.my/ET/1993/main9.html)

The Affective Filter Hypothesis provides the reason why children ultimately achieve a higher level of L2 proficiency than is achieved by adults. „[...] children have an advantage in language development because their affective filter is lower. Adult learners, on the other hand, are likely to have higher affective filters because of events that occur in adolescence‟ (McLaughlin, 1988:54). Krashen (1981) claims that adolescents, due to their increased self-consciousness feel vulnerable and have a lowered self-image. These feelings, presumably, prevent them from language learning.

I will extend on the variable factor „motivation‟.

3.9.2.3 Motivation

De Bot et al. (2007) state that „[...] a high motivation and a positive attitude towards a second language and its community help second-language learners learning‟ (de Bot et al., 2007:72). Ellis (1997) defines it as „[...] the attitudes and affective states that influence the degree of effort that learners make to learn an L2‟ (Ellis, 1997:75). This ties in with what Krashen‟s Affective Filter Hypothesis states: a motivated learner is likely to achieve success in L2 acquisition.

The exact nature of motivation is defined by Gardner & Lambert (1972), who identify two kinds of motivation: integrative and instrumental motivation. In the case of integrative motivation, the learner is interested in the target language and its culture

32 and desires to become part of that culture. If a learner is instrumentally motivated, he has a more functional reason to learn the second language. For example, he may aim at getting a better job or at entering a university.

These types are based on the assumption that motivation is the cause of L2 learning. Ellis (1997) adds a kind of motivation being the result of learning: the „resultative motivation‟. Achieving success in learning may be motivating for the learner. Ellis (1997) identifies a fourth type, the „intrinsic motivation‟. This one „[...] involves the arousal and maintenance of curiosity and can ebb and flow as a result of such factors as learners‟ particular interests and the extent to which they feel personally involved in learning activities‟ (Ellis, 1997:76). This is often associated with „self- determination‟. That is, if learners „[...] are able to determine their own learning objectives, choose their own ways of achieving these, and evaluate their own progress‟ (Ellis, 2008:686). Being involved in decision-making, the learner may have a more motivated attitude towards the L2. He is thus likely to produce more utterances.

Ellis (1997) claims that these four types should be considered as complementary, not as distinct and oppositional. A learner can be both integratively and instrumentally motivated at the same time. He also stresses the dynamic nature of motivation; a learner can be motivated and at times not, depending on the context of learning. Furthermore, de Bot et al. (2007) point out that there is a possible interaction between motivation and aptitude. According to Gardner & Lambert‟s definition, motivation causes success. Others claim the opposite; motivation is a result of achieved success. Anyway, the correlation between motivation and success points to the interactive relationship between motivation and aptitude. De Bot et al. (2007) claim that „aptitude, together with motivation, is probably the best predictor of success in a foreign language, [...]‟ (de Bot et al., 2007:75).

3.9.2.4 Aptitude

Ellis (1997) argues that „[...] people differ in the extent to which they possess a natural ability for learning an L2. This ability, known as language aptitude, is believed to be in part related to general intelligence but also to be in part distinct‟ (Ellis, 1997:73). According to Carroll (1981), „aptitude as a concept corresponds to

33 the notion that in approaching a particular learning task or program, the individual may be thought of as possessing some current state capability of learning that task – if the individual is motivated and has the opportunity to do so‟ (Carroll, quoted in Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991:167). Aptitude, like intelligence, cannot be improved by training.

Carroll identifies several abilities involved in language aptitude, organized in his „standard four component view‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:345):

1. „Phonetic coding ability: an ability to identify distinct sounds, to form associations between those sounds and symbols representing them, and to retain these associations; 2. Grammatical sensitivity: the ability to recognize the grammatical functions of words [...] in sentence structures; 3. Rote learning ability for foreign language materials: the ability to learn associations between sounds and meanings rapidly and efficiently, and to retain these associations; 4. Inductive language learning ability: the ability to infer or induce the rules governing a set of language materials, given samples of language materials that permit such inferences‟ (Carroll 1981, cited by Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991:167).

Skehan (1989) suggests to reduce Carroll‟s four component model into a three-part one, by combining grammatical sensitivity and inductive learning ability into one component: „language analytic ability‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:346).

It is worth mentioning that these four (or three) key factors are independent. Most learners are not equally skilled in all of them. An individual could show an aptitude for grammar, rather than for the identification of sounds. Research has demonstrated that a person who is good at one or more of these abilities is advantaged in learning a second language.

The main question relating to aptitude in the field of SLA is „how does language aptitude relate to the processes of interlanguage development?‟ (Ellis, 1997:74). Skehan (1998) proposes that the various aspects of language aptitude may be implicated in different phases of processing. In this way, phonetic coding ability

34 would play a role in incorporating input, memory ability would be relevant in all stages, etc. (Ellis, 2008:659).

3.9.2.5 Anxiety

Anxiety is an affective factor, much related Krashen‟s Affective Filter Hypothesis and especially to motivation. That is, if a learner is not at all anxious, he is less motivated to make any effort, whereas a highly motivated learner can be anxious about not achieving success. This is said to be „the curvilinear affect on performance: if one doesn‟t care at all, there is little reason to do well. On the other hand, too much concern about failure can get in the way of success‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:357). Ellis (2008) quotes Bailey (1983) who assumes that learners become anxious when they find themselves in a competitive position among other learners in class and tend to perceive themselves to be less proficient. This type of anxiety is named „social anxiety‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:357). Other sources of anxiety are tests, the learners‟ relationship with their teachers and perfectionism. Horwitz (2001) noted that „[...] in almost all cases, any task that was judged “comfortable” by some learners was also judged “stressful” by others‟ (Horwitz 2001, cited by Ellis, 2008:693).

Generally, there are three different assumptions about the relationship between language anxiety and learning: „(1) anxiety facilitates language learning, (2) anxiety has a negative impact on language learning, and (3) language anxiety is the result of difficulties with learning rather than their cause‟ (Ellis, 2008:293-4). Although there is little agreement on this relationship, MacIntyre & Gardner (1991) have come to the following conclusion: „Covering several measures of proficiency, in several different samples, and even in somewhat different conceptual frameworks, it has been shown that anxiety negatively affects performance in the second language‟ (MacIntyre & Gardner 1991, cited by Ellis, 2008:694).

3.9.2.6 The role of the first language

The process in which the first language influences second language performance is often referred to as „interference‟. Ellis (2008) places this term within the framework of the behaviourist language theory, which posits that „old habits get in the way of learning new habits. Thus, in L2 acquisition the patterns of the learner‟s mother 35 tongue that are different from those of the L2 get in the way of learning the L2‟ (Ellis, 2008:968). Gass & Selinker (2001) start from the distinction between positive and negative transfer. The first one is also referred to as „facilitation‟ and implies that the transfer results in a correct utterance. Negative transfer is also known as „interference‟ and is defines as „the use of the first language (or other languages known) in a second language context when the resulting second language form is incorrect‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:455). They further distinguish two types of interference. Firstly, „retroactive inhibition, where learning acts back on previously learned material, causing someone to forget (language loss)‟, and secondly, „proactive inhibition – where a series of responses already learned tends to appear in situations where a new set is required‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:68). These „series of responses already learned‟ are referred to as „old habits‟ by behaviourist theories of language learning. They should be unlearnt in order to be replaced by new habits.

Krashen & Terrell (1983) consider a different view on interference, proposed by Newmark (1971). He claims that there is no interference of the first language in second language performance. Rather, an error in the L2 utterance is simply the result of „falling back on the first language‟ because the performer lacks the rule in the L2. Put more formally, „an acquirer will substitute some first language rule for a rule of the second language if the acquirer needs the rule to express himself but has not yet acquired it‟ (Krashen & Terrell; 1983:41). The error is thus a result of ignorance.

This way of producing sentences is called „the L1 plus Monitor Mode‟ (Krashen & Terrell, 1983:41) and has both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, acquirers are advantaged using an L1 rule, because it allows them to „outperform their competence, to meet a practical need in communication in the target language before they have acquired the relevant i+1 rule‟ (Krashen & Terrell, 1983:42). Another advantage is that performers‟ early production provokes output. They are able to engage more in conversation, which increases the comprehensible input. On the other hand, there are serious disadvantages of falling back on the L1. If the L1 rule is not similar to the L2 rule, the Monitor is expected to note and correct the error made. However, the Monitor use is limited and acquirers are not able to know every rule of the L2 system. So, „use of L1 rules requires constant vigilance on the part of the Monitor‟ which is „an extremely awkward and tiring way to produce formally

36 correct sentences in a second language‟ (Krashen & Terrell, 1983:42). Moreover, even if the Monitor repairs an error, this does not lead automatically to the elimination of the L1 rule.

We can conclude that L1 interference takes place when second language performance starts too early; that is, before performers have had the time and input to gain sufficient competence.

3.9.2.7 The various fields of contact with the L2

The most relevant factor with respect to my research is „language contact‟. My informants‟ second language acquisition of English takes place in a naturalistic, non- instructed context and its input is mainly dependent on the exposure to the language through popular culture. I particularly examine the level of exposure to English as an L2 of ten- and eleven-year-old children through their extracurricular activities and how this affects their English language proficiency.

Caroline Lippens (2010) performed a similar study. She researched the key factors in Flemish children‟s incidental acquisition of English before formal instruction. She concluded that the informants‟ main source of influence on their L2 acquisition are watching English television programmes, listening to English music and playing English games. Moreover, the main activity that exposes the young acquirers to English on a regular basis is watching an English television programme or film. Cassiman (2005) in her study examined the lexical knowledge of English of Flemish children prior to English instruction. She claimed that their current knowledge of the words „[...] must be the result of informal instruction through language contact‟ (Cassiman, 2005:131). Her hypothesis states that the major source of contact with English is watching English television. She mentioned that „television creates a familiarity with English on a daily basis in its natural surroundings‟ (Cassiman, 2005:78). Other important factors are listening to English music via the radio and searching the Net. This confirms only partially the findings of Caroline Lippens.

Kuppens (2007) investigated the influence of English mass media on the L2 acquisition of English lexis among Flemish teenagers who have not yet received any formal instruction of English. She found that listening to English music and playing English computer games do not affect the amount of correct words, but rather the 37 degree of difficulty of these words. However, teenagers watching subtitled English television programmes and films on a daily basis have a larger vocabulary than those who do not.

These studies assume that exposure to English mass media significantly influences the L2 acquisition of English. Another kind of contact is considered by Appel & Vermeer (1994). According to them, learning an L2 incidentally is largely influenced by coming into contact with native speakers. Only if there is sufficient contact with native speakers of the L2, incidental L2 acquisition can take place. They argue that the notion of „social distance‟ plays a significant role. The larger the social distance between L2 acquirers and members of the target language group, the smaller the exposure to the second language and thus the less successful will be the L2 acquisition. Additionally, there is a possible interaction between the acquired level of the L2 and language contact. The more advanced the level of the L2 acquirer is, the more varied will be the contact with native speakers. Consequently, the L2 acquirer will achieve a higher level of proficiency.

4 Conclusion

I would like to conclude the theoretical framework of my dissertation. The first chapter of this section dealt with the sociolinguistic aspect of my research, namely when and how English appears in the world. In the second chapter, there is a more psycholinguistic approach of my research. More specifically, how a second language is acquired.

First I discussed English as a universalising language. Several geographical-historical and socio-cultural reasons explain the phenomenon of the English language‟s globalisation. Then, I considered two models which classify the speakers of English in the world. First, a distinction is made between ENL/ESL/EFL categorising English speakers in three groups according to the status of English in a particular country. Second, Kachru expands on this model with his „Three Circles‟ model, taking into account the socio-political and developmental aspects of English in diverse cultural contexts. The third part of the first chapter is more related to my informants‟ situation as it dealt with the position of English in Flanders and Wallonia.

In the previous chapter, I elaborated on SLA. I offered the definitions of basic issues that have been addressed in many different ways within the field of L2 ACQUISITION. I will often use these terms in the findings of my research. I also described the different parameters that influence the process of L2 acquisition. Factors such as age, motivation, anxiety, aptitude, the role of the first language are very important in relation to my investigation. The various fields of language contact in a naturalistic context appear to be the most important factor influencing the L2 acquisition of my informants.

I will now turn to the elaboration of my research. First I will discuss my informants and the methodology of my data-collection. Then, the results will be analysed in detail.

Part II: The differences between Flemish pupils acquiring English and Walloon pupils acquiring English before the input of formal instruction.

5 Introduction to the research

5.1 Research question

This master dissertation investigates the differences between Dutch-speaking and French-speaking primary school children acquiring English as an L2 before formal instruction. The great majority of these pupils have Dutch and French as a mother tongue and do not use English in their daily communication. Therefore it is interesting to examine how and where they come into contact with English, what they already know of its vocabulary and if there is a difference between Flemish and Walloon informants. Where relevant a further investigation within groups is performed.

5.2 Informants and setting

I collected the data for my research in February, March and May 2011 at the primary schools „Don Bosco‟ and „Pré vert‟. The former school is located in Halle, Flemish Brabant. „Pré vert‟ is the primary school of Lillois, which is a small village in Walloon Brabant. This primary school has launched the educational project of immersion since the beginning of the school year 2008-2009. There are three classes (a first, a second and a third year) in which French-speaking pupils are instructed in Dutch. This kind of instruction does not aim at substituting the French-speaking culture with the Dutch-speaking one, but rather at the interaction between the French-speaking and the Dutch-speaking identities. Apart from the immersion programme in the first three years of the Walloon school, there is no difference between the educational programmes of the two schools. Moreover, as the Walloon informants I investigate are all in the fifth and sixth year, they do not participate at the immersion project and thus they are instructed in French.

I chose to investigate children of the fifth and sixth year of primary school, because they have not already taken English lessons and yet they are old enough to have been influenced by English through popular culture (television, music, computer, etc.). A

40 total of 170 informants cooperated in my research. They are 10, 11, 12 or 13 years old. In each school, I could count on the participation of two classes of the fifth year and two of the sixth. At „Don Bosco‟, there were 81 informants, 39 of the fifth year and 42 of the sixth. At „Pré vert‟, there was a total of 89 pupils, of which 45 were in the fifth year and 44 in the sixth. At „Don Bosco‟, there were 44 male and 37 female informants. At „Pré vert‟, 40 informants were male and 49 female. All the informants of the Flemish school speak Dutch. However, many of them are bilingual and some even trilingual. The various languages that are spoken are Dutch, French, Romanian, Turkish, Cambodian, German, Arabic, Tamazight (a dialect of the Berber population spoken in North Africa), Indian, Moroccan and Spanish. All Walloon pupils speak French. Other languages that are spoken are Dutch, Italian and Serbo-Croatian. The informants‟ linguistic background might have an influence on their exposure to English and their knowledge of English vocabulary.

5.3 Methodology

In my survey, I approached the informants in two ways. First they had to fill out a questionnaire. I completely adopted this questionnaire from Caroline Lippens (2010) as our researches are closely related. It questioned the informants‟ linguistic background, their attitude towards English, their motivation to learn it at school and their conception with regard to their knowledge of English. Furthermore, a series of questions aimed at their exposure to English in extracurricular activities. More specifically, these activities entail watching television programmes and films, the use of the computer, listening to English music, etc. I also asked after their preferences regarding subtitling or dubbing, English music or music in their mother tongue, etc. I used yes/no- questions and other closed questions that allowed the informants to choose between a fixed set of answers. However, the informants had the maximum freedom in presenting their views, because they were always asked to further comment their marks.

I linked these results to the results of a written vocabulary test, which is largely based on Charlotte Lippens‟ test (2010). She investigated how many words, and more particularly which word categories and semantic fields are known by 12- and 13-year- old children prior to English instruction. Her informants had to give the English terminology of 324 words. My test is a reduced version and questions only 75 words.

The test used pictures to elicit the right terminology from the children. They were also asked to translate words and short sentences. I further asked them to fill out gaps in English sentences with words that were given in the beginning of the exercise. The test words belong to different semantic fields, so that I was able to analyse how far my informants‟ active vocabulary reaches. I ensured the pupils that the right spelling was of no importance, because the test aimed at analysing the amount of productive vocabulary. Words that were spelled phonetically correct, were counted as right answers. Anyway, the fear of making spelling mistakes might have influenced their final scores, as some of the informants hesitated to write down words they could not spell correctly.

I decided to gather the data in each classroom separately during the scheduled lessons to avoid lack of concentration. According to the teachers of both „Don Bosco‟ and „Pré vert‟ it would be no good idea to gather all informants together in a room, as they would be less attentive in such a large group. It took the Flemish and Walloon informants of the fifth year an hour to fill out the questionnaire, those of the sixth year just needed 50 minutes. The vocabulary test was done two months later, in May and took 20 minutes for the Flemish students and only about 15 minutes for the Walloon students, because the vast majority was not able to fill out even half of the test. Every group was very cooperative and enthusiastic about participating at both the questionnaire and test. However, some pupils were discouraged when they realised that they could hardly fill out the vocabulary test. This was most striking in the Walloon classes. I assured them this was normal, because they have never had an English lesson before.

6 The analysis of the results

Each topic of the questionnaire is dealt with. For each question, I turned the answers into percentages and classified them per group. Then, I performed a one-way ANOVA test to compare the groups within both schools and between both schools. If a significant difference was revealed between more than two groups, a post hoc scheffe test was done.

7 General finding

As a general remark in advance I would like to draw the attention to the fact that with respect to the vocabulary test the Flemish informants score much more higher than the Walloon informants. The one-way ANOVA test revealed a very significant difference between the results of the Flemish group and those of the Walloon group (p=0,000). The former have an average mark of 37,04 (SD 17,83) out of 75, whereas the mean score of the latter group only is 15,28 (SD 12,56).

In the next chapter „Data and findings‟ I will try to find out on the basis of the answers to the questionnaire which factors may be the cause of this striking difference.

8 Data and findings

8.1 General questions

8.1.1 The informants’ mother tongue

All informants of „Don Bosco‟ are able to speak Dutch and likewise, all informants of „Pré vert‟ can speak French. However, a considerable part of the pupils is multilingual. The following chart shows the various languages spoken at home by the informants of both schools. (See appendix question 1)

Out of eighty-one Flemish informants, forty-four (54,3%) speak Dutch at home, whereas nineteen pupils (23,5%) also have French as a home language. Four informants (4,9%) speak French only. Fourteen students (17,3%) speak other languages at home, sometimes combined with either Dutch or French. These languages are Cambodian, Romanian, German, Turkish, Arabic, Tamazight (a Berber dialect spoken in North Africa), Indian, Moroccan and Spanish.

Out of eighty-nine Walloon informants, eighty-four (93,3%) have French as a mother tongue. Only three (3,4%) also speak Dutch at home. The remaining two (3,4%) speak other languages, such as Italian and Serbo-Croatian.

It is clear that there are more multilingual informants in the Flemish school than in the Walloon school, as eleven different languages were listed, whereas only four languages were mentioned by the Walloon informants. In addition, none of the informants acquired English as a mother tongue. However, the informants have different linguistic backgrounds, which most likely will influence their spontaneous 45 acquisition of English. Furthermore, from a chronological perspective, some pupils will learn English as a second language, for others English will be acquired as a third language.

It would be interesting to examine if the French-speaking pupils of „Don Bosco‟ have roughly the same results as the French-speaking pupils of „Pré vert‟. In this way, we could see if the difference in final scores on the vocabulary test could be due to the fact that Dutch people have an advantage in learning English because they are both German languages. In this case however, the sample size of the French-speaking part of „Don Bosco‟ is too low (4,94% French-speaking pupils), so the experiment would lack the precision to provide reliable answers to the question. This would however be interesting to investigate in further research.

The one-way ANOVA test showed that within the Flemish school there is no significant difference between the various language groups (p>0,05), and this can also be said of the groups within the Walloon school (p> 0,05). From these results, it might possibly follow that the children‟s incidental L2 acquisition is not influenced by the language they speak at home.

8.1.2 Sex

The chart below shows the distribution of boys and girls in both schools. As we can see, the sexes are quite equally distributed:

Sex Flemish school Walloon school Boys 54,3% 44,9% Girls 45,7% 55,1%

Both in the Flemish and the Walloon school, there is no significant difference between boys and girls (p>0,05). The average score of the Flemish girls is 34,58 (SD 17,35) out of 75, the Flemish boys have a mean score of 39,13 (SD 18,16). In „Pré vert‟, the girls score an average of 15,69 (SD 13,91) and the boys 14,78 (SD 10, 81).

This allows us hypothesising that boys and girls at the age of 10 to 13 have about the same level of English. 46

8.1.3 Age

Age Flemish informants Walloon informants 10 18,5% 25,8% 11 43,2% 47,2% 12 33,3% 22,5% 13 4,9% 4,5%

The table illustrates that there is a majority in both schools of 11-year-olds. This is because in both the fifth and the sixth grade, there are informants of this age. The 13- year-olds are in the minority, because probably these are pupils who had to stay down a year.

No significant differences are found between the various language groups within the Flemish school (p>0,05). In the Walloon school, on the contrary, the 11-year-olds score significantly higher than the 10-year-olds (p=0,011). The first group has a mean

47 score of 19,74 (SD 14,55), whereas the second averagely scores 9,11 (SD 7,62). Next to these two, there are no other significant differences found. On the chart we see that there is a falling trend towards the 13-year-olds. A possible explanation is that they are students who stayed down a year.

8.1.4 Informants to a foreign country

I asked the informants if they have ever been to Great Britain, the United States of America or another country in which English was the main language for them to communicate. (See appendix questions 2, 3 and 4)

Foreign country Flemish school Walloon school Yes 46,9 % 32,6 % No 53,1 % 67,4 %

The table illustrates that a majority of both groups have never been to a country in which they had to speak English. 46,9% of the Flemish students went to a foreign country, whereas this only amounts to 32,6 % of the Walloon informants.

16,3% Flemish informants have been to Great Britain; 3,5% to the United States of America and 40,7% went to other countries, such as Turkey, Spain, Greece, Ecuador, Austria, France, Luxembourg, Morocco, India, Italy, the Philippines, Germany, Czech Republic and Cambodia. 17,4% of the Walloon pupils went to Great Britain, 3,3% to the US and 21,7% to another country, such as Turkey, Greece, Spain, Germany, France, Morocco, Indonesia, the Philippines and Tunisia. It is interesting to see that the informants choose English as a means of communication in all these countries which they visited. This illustrates the status of English as a lingua franca.

With respect to the marks of the vocabulary test, no significant difference is found between the Flemish students who did go to a foreign country and those who did not (p>0,05); neither within the various Walloon groups (p>0,05). We might conclude that going on holiday to a country in which English is the major means of communication does not really influence the acquisition of English as an L2. In addition, this is probably no decisive factor which could explain the difference in results between the Flemings and the Walloons. A possible explanation for being no factor is that on holiday everything is arranged by the parents or the holiday responsible. In other words, the adults are the main speakers. „Letting the children order the drinks‟ is not sufficient with regard to the incidental learning of a language by a child.

8.1.5 An English acquaintance

I asked the informants if they know anyone who speaks English, for instance a close relative or a family friend. If so, who? (See appendix question 5)

English acquaintance Flemish informants Walloon informants Yes 49,4% 66,3% No 50,6% 33,7%

As for the Flemish informants, almost half of the group (49,4%) knows someone who speaks English in their close environment. An overview with regard to this is given below:

 People of my riding lessons  A friend of my father (3)  A friend‟s father is a Jamaican, he has still difficulties speaking Dutch  A good friend of mine in France  Friends I met on holiday (2)  My stepmother who comes from a different country  A friend who‟s mother cannot speak Dutch, we communicate in English  My neighbours  Colleagues of my father (2)  My cousin who lives in London  A cousin who lives in the US

The following list of people cannot be considered as authentic speakers of English. However, the informants considered them as such.

 My brother speaks English very well  My father learned English and uses it for his job and on holiday (3)  My stepmother studied English at university  My stepfather  My mother who answers me in English when I ask what we are going to eat for diner  Various members of my family (6)  My godmother who already went to the US  My aunt who is learning English at college  My mother learned English at university  My sister is an English interpreter  My mother mixes Dutch and English when she speaks  My uncle learned it (4)

Of the Walloon informants a great majority (66,3%) have an English acquaintance. One class of the sixth year (6A) has an English-speaking pupil. He was absent the day they filled in the questionnaire. Other people they know are:

 My father‟s cousin lives in the US  A friend who lives in my street and friends I met in Tunisia  My mother moved to the US when she was three  My father is trilingual, he speaks French, Dutch and English  My stepmother‟s grandparents are native English speakers  My cousins are native English speakers  My uncle lives in the US  The father of my best friend is English

The following people are no native speakers of English. However, my informants are convinced of their fluency in English.

 Various members of my family who once learned English at school (7)  My mother took English evening classes (3)  My father speaks English for his job (4)  My mother has to speak English for her job (4)  My brother speaks English because he learns it at school (4)  My stepmother speaks English (2)  My cousin takes English courses  A friend of mine who takes English courses  My godfather is a diplomat and has already lived in the US  My aunt who is married in the US

It is remarkable that between the Flemish informants who know someone who speaks English and those who do not, no significant difference in marks is found (p> 0,05), while there is one between the Walloon students who have an English acquaintance and those who have not (p= 0,016). Those who do know an English speaker have an average mark of 17,64 (SD 14,10), whereas the others get a mean score of 10,63 (SD 6,87).

The conclusion I can draw from these results is that having an English acquaintance within your close environment might possibly be a factor influencing the L2 acquisition of Walloon children. Since we see no influence on the Flemish informants, it could be that the amount of contact between the acquaintance and the informants is another factor that influences their L2 acquisition. E.g. there is an English native speaker in one class of „Pré vert‟ (6A), which involves that these pupils have an almost daily contact with this acquaintance. This kind of intensive contact is not seen with the other informants and their English acquaintances.

Moreover, this remarkable finding (i.e. the absence of influence of an English acquaintance on my Flemish informants‟ L2 acquisition) indicates the possible relevance of investigating whether the influence of an English acquaintance on child L2 acquisition depends on the already acquired level of knowledge. E.g. John is not yet skilled in English vocabulary. When he talks to his English native aunt Julia, his skills are obviously improving. His older sister Mary, on the contrary,

52 is more skilled than him. When she has a conversation with their aunt Julia, her English is less improving, because her knowledge of English already has a high level.

8.1.6 Motivational attitudes

I asked the informants if they think English is a beautiful language. They had to motivate their answers as well. (See appendix question 6)

English nice language Flemish informants Walloon informants Yes 91,4% 87,6% No 4,9% 7,9% +/- 1,2% 2,2% No opinion 2,5% 2,2%

This question goes together with the question if they would like to learn English and if they consider it necessary to learn it. (See appendix question 7 and 9)

Motivated Flemish Informants Walloon informants Yes 88,9% 70,8% No 11,1% 28,1% +/- 0% 1,1%

The majority of both groups think English is a nice language and are motivated to learn it. With respect to the first question, a little more Flemish (91,4%) than Walloon informants (87,6%) answered positively. With respect to the second question, 88,9% of the Flemish informants would like to learn English and find it necessary to learn it, which is about 18% more than the Walloon informants (70,8%).

Gardner & Lambert (1972) have identified two kinds of motivation: integrative and instrumental motivation (see above). I divided the various positive reactions of the informants with regard to English in accordance with these types. People who are integratively motivated are interested in the target language and its culture and want to become part of that culture.

 English is a beautiful language

 English is a different language  English is an easy language. Three Flemish informants find it easier than French  English is a useful language  English is a „cool‟ language  English is a world/international/universal language.  English is a nice language  English, that is life  English is an interesting language  English is a melodious language  English is an amusing language  English has a nice accent  English sounds chic  English is an elegant language  English has a lot of funny words  There are a lot of nice English songs. Some think English songs are much more nicer than Dutch songs  English is one of the languages most spoken in the world  Two informants consider English-speaking people very kind

When someone is instrumentally motivated, he or she has a more functional reason to learn English.

 A number of informants are looking forward to learning English, as they consider the knowledge of English useful to go on holiday. One informant claims that you can more easily make friends on holiday.  Knowing English is important to have a good job in the future. One informant claims that knowing English enables you to find a job quickly. Another informant is already practicing her English as she is dreaming of a carrier in public relations.  It is important to know English as it is the main means of communication when going abroad. It enables you to communicate with people who speak a different language than you. One informant realises he has to learn English

because he wants to live in the US and in Australia. Another informant is looking forward to know English for when he visits his cousin in the Philippines. Other informants would use English when they go to Turkey, Italy, etc. In addition, one informant says that if someone cannot speak English, he/she is not ready to go to other countries. With respect to this, another informants illustrates the need for English when for example a stranger has lost his way, you could help him in English. All these arguments illustrate the pupils‟ awareness of English‟s status as a lingua franca.  Knowing English makes you understand English songs, films and television programmes. Two Flemish informants are looking forward to the moment they will be able to watch films without subtitles.  Knowing English is important to understand English games and the computer.  One informant pointed out that learning English will enable her to communicate more easily with her best friend who only speaks English.

The following motivations cannot be classified under the previous types.

 According to a Flemish informant, English resembles Dutch, but the pronunciation is much more funny. Others think the English pronunciation is more beautiful than the pronunciation of Dutch. Another informant thinks English is really beautiful just because it is very different from Dutch.  Several informants are looking forward to learning English, as they would know three languages then: Dutch, French and English.  Some informants are looking forward to learning English as they will finally understand it and will not need a dictionary to look up the meaning of English words.

The informants who answered negatively to the questions, explained their attitude as follows:

 Some informants prefer Dutch and French, as they are the languages spoken in Belgium.  Some Walloon informants are learning Dutch at the moment and think they would have too many study material if they had to learn English as well.

 One informant is afraid to mix up the languages he knows.  English is a difficult language. A Walloon informant says that he already tried to learn it, but failed: “Je suis vraiment nul”.  One informant states that it is not necessary to learn English, because at the moment he does not need it in daily life.  A Flemish informant gives the priority to learning French.  English is boring.

There is no significant difference detected between Flemish pupils who love the English language and those who do not (p>0,05). Likewise, no difference is found between the Walloon informants who find English is nice and those who do not (p>0,05). Furthermore, we find that between the motivated Flemish students and the unmotivated ones no significant difference in scores is found, and neither in the Walloon school (p>0,05). The chart however indicates a rising trend within the Walloon groups: the unmotivated have a score of 12,48 (SD 8,07), the motivated ones score 16,44 (SD 13,89).

Since no significant differences are found in neither of the schools, I can conclude that a certain attitude towards English, may it be positive or negative, and the motivation to learn English possibly are no factors influencing the spontaneous child L2 acquisition. These findings are confirmed by Gass & Selinker (2001) who state that „differential motivation does not appear to impact a child‟s success or lack of success in learning language‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:175). However, it goes against de Bot et al.‟s (2007) assumption that „[...] a high motivation and a positive attitude towards a second language and its community help second-language learners learning‟ (de Bot et al., 2007:72).

Possibly, attitude and motivation have no direct influence on L2 acquisition. Regardless of that, one‟s attitude towards a language and motivation to learn it might influence the extent to which one chooses to be exposed to that language. So in point of fact, those factors could have an indirect influence on the L2 acquisition of children.

8.1.7 English courses

It is interesting to know if some of the informants already have had any kind of formal instruction of English before, for example at language camp. This cannot be considered as incidental acquisition, however it finds place outside the formal structure of education. (See appendix question 10)

English course Flemish informants Walloon informants Yes 11,1% 24,7% No 88,9% 75,3%

Flemish informants: 88,9% has never attended any kind of English courses before, whereas 11,1% has.

 I went to a language camp in America for two weeks. I did not really enjoyed it, because it was difficult to understand everything.  I attended two hours of an English lesson during the summer holidays in Brussels. I especially enjoyed the reading.

The following list cannot be considered as real instruction of English. Nevertheless, the informants might have understood this question more broadly than I had intended them to.

 When I was nine, I was in England. I have a friend who lives there and he taught me English during this period.  When my brother is studying for his English course at secondary school, I am studying the same with him.  I have English-speaking neighbours. Their children have taught me some English one day.  My parents taught me English at home as a game when I was six years old. It usually lasted an hour.  For two months in the playground with my friends.  I got lessons at home last year, each lesson lasted an hour. It was nice and funny.  In November 2010, my brother taught me English at home during an hour.

Walloon informants: 75,3% of the informants have never attended a language camp or have never had any kind of formal instruction of English before, whereas 24,7% have. This is more than the double of the Flemish students who ever attended an English lesson.

 Thirteen informants took the English evening classes two hours a week in their school „Pré vert‟. One informant says the courses were very amusing. Three informants did not like the teacher. Another informant considered it annoying that the teacher never explained what she was saying in English. A sixth informant was very enthusiastic about it because she learned a lot of words.  One informant went to a language camp “Let‟s speak good English” in their neighbourhood (Ophain).  One informant is taking the annual courses of English of the same organisation “Let‟s speak good English”. The courses are given by native speakers of English and children can start their training when they are only four years old.  I had English lessons in Braine l‟Alleud for one year. I did not enjoy it, because there were too many children in one class.

 I went to a language camp of a week. It was a nice experience.  For one week I had private courses English. I enjoyed it, because the teacher was a very nice lady.

The following arguments cannot be considered as real English instruction:

 My father taught me English one hour a week.  At home my father taught me English for an hour every Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday.

The instructed Flemish pupils (IF) and the uninstructed ones (UIF) have no significantly different score (p>0,05). Most of their courses consisted of playful interactions with English (see above). However, on the graph we can observe a mounting tendency towards those who answered positively to the question. On the other hand, the difference between the instructed Walloon informants (IW) and the uninstructed ones (UIW) is significant (p=0,000). The UIW have a mean score of 12,52 (SD 9,47) whereas the IW have an average of 23,68 (SD 16,75). Their instructions consisted of well-structured courses after school and language camps. This can probably explain why there is a difference in performance between the IW and UIW and why there is no difference observed between the IF and UIF.

It should be noted that the performance of IW is still significantly lower than the Flemings in general.

The conclusion I can draw from this is that a well-structured instruction of English through evening classes or language camps possibly is a factor that influences child L2 acquisition.

8.1.8 The conception of English

I asked the informants if they think English is easy to understand and to produce. They also had to explain their answer. (See appendix question 11 and 12)

Easy to understand Flemish informants Walloon informants Yes 59,3% 33,7% No 33,3% 48,3% +/- 7,4% 11,2% I don’t know 0% 6,7%

Easy to produce Flemish informants Walloon informants Yes 42% 7,9% No 45,7% 74,2% +/- 11,1% 4,5% I don’t know 1,2% 13,5%

On the whole, more Walloon informants find it difficult to understand and produce English.

Flemish informants: 7,4% sometimes understand English. 33,3% do not think English is easily understandable, as opposed to 59,3% who do. 11,1% sometimes find it difficult to produce English. 45,7% do not think English is easy to speak, whereas 42% do find is easy.

Reasons for considering English as a difficult language are:

A. To understand  English has odd sounds  The words are difficult to understand  It is a complete different language than Dutch  People who speak English, speak too quickly

B. To produce  It is difficult to pronounce the words  The accents are difficult  English has a specific intonation which is difficult to imitate  The spelling does not reflect the pronunciation

Motives for considering English as an easy language are categorised according to the degree of difficulty, the resemblance to Dutch and the exposure to English:

A. Degree of difficulty  English is easier than French

B. Resemblance to Dutch  The words resemble to Dutch words  One informant explicitly says that Walloon people have more difficulties in understanding English, because their language does not resemble English

C. Exposure to English  I can easily understand English, because I am used to the language through computer games and songs  I watch a lot of English television programmes, so I understand English easily  English is easy, because I already heard it many times  Watching subtitled films helps you understand English

Walloon informants: 11,2% think it is sometimes easy to understand English. 48,3% thinks it is difficult to understand, as opposed to 33,7% who consider English is easily understandable. Producing English is considered more difficult than understanding it, since only 7,9% claim to speak English easily, whereas 74,2% find it difficult. 4,5% argue that it is sometimes easy to produce.

Reasons for considering English as a difficult language are:

A. To understand  It is a complete different language than French  One word has several meanings  English is an odd language  I already find it difficult to understand Dutch, and English seems an even more difficult language  The English accent makes it all difficult

B. To produce  The spelling does not coincide with the pronunciation  I do not know enough English words to speak it  English is a very complex language  English is difficult to speak, depending on the level we have to perform

 English is difficult to speak, especially in public. Another informant says that having stress makes it all even more difficult

Motives for considering English as an easy language:

A. Degree of difficulty  English is easy, but you have to learn it first  When it is written down, it is easy to understand

B. Resemblance to French or Dutch  It resembles French, for example „table‟  I recognise words from Dutch  I easily understand English, because many words are often similar to their Dutch and French equivalents

C. Exposure to English  English is easy, because I often hear my father talking English for his job  It is easy to understand English, because I am used to hear English from when I was little

For both the Flemish and Walloon school, the scores between those who consider it difficult to understand and to produce English and those who do not are not significantly different (p>0,05). I can conclude that the conception of English, be it difficult or easy, may be no factor that influences the L2 acquisition of Walloon and Flemish children.

8.1.9 Personal practice

The informants had to write down if they ever have conversations in English and if they ever write in English. I also asked them when, with who and in which situations. (See appendix, questions 13 and 14)

English conversations Flemish informants Walloon informants Yes 33,3% 13,5% No 65,4% 86,5% Sometimes 1,2% 0%

Writing in English Flemish informants Walloon informants Yes 24,7% 10,1% No 69,1% 89,0% Sometimes 6,2% 0%

A minority of both groups ever have conversations in English or write in English. However, there are more Flemish than Walloon children who engage in these activities.

Flemish informants: 1,2% at times engage in English conversations, while 33,3% have conversations on a more frequent basis. 65,4% never converse in English. There are clearly less informants who write in English, as it is only 24,7% of the group. 6,2% write in English now and then.

Conversations in English:

 Via MSN messenger, Facebook and Netlog with friends.  I speak English with my friends and at home with my parents, just for fun.  On holiday when we lose our way.  When I am gaming via the Net, I can talk to people from all over the world.  When my brother and me are playing on the play station together, we talk English to each other.  I talk English to my friends on holiday.  I speak English when I sing songs out loud with my friends.  I speak English during holidays with people who work at the bars and hotels.  At times I have to speak English with my Philippine stepmother because she does not understand everything.  I often speak English with my English neighbours.

 I usually speak English with my father when we are sitting in the car, just for fun and because we are bored.  When my brother and me are watching television, we talk English to each other.  Every weekend I talk English with my Cambodian uncle and aunt.  Each weekend I speak English with my cousins who live in Brussels.  I speak English with my Tibetan aunt.  One of my friends cannot speak Dutch or French, so I have to talk in English with him.

When/what do they write in English:

 Choruses of songs.  On the internet when I am chatting. I use words such as „thanks‟, „yes‟, „no‟.  When I have nothing to do, I write English in my most beautiful handwriting: „I love you‟, „I like the flowers‟  When I am gaming, I write down „Follow me!‟, „Help me for a quest‟.  I write letters and songs in English, almost every day.  When I am bored, I write down English sentences and words.  I sporadically write English poems or songs.  I write in English on Facebook: „how are you‟, „what are we gonna do next‟, „I don‟t know‟, „very good‟.  When I am chatting with my English friend.

Walloon informants: 86,5% never converse in English, as opposed to 13,5% who do. 89% never write in English, and 10,1% write English on a daily basis.

Conversations in English:

 I once talked English during a game with a friend.  I sometimes speak English with my father. He wants me to get used to the language.  When I was on holiday I had to speak English with the waiter in the bar.  At home I speak English with my parents, especially at diner when my mother tells about her day.  I sometimes speak English with my mother: „Are you ready?‟ „Yes, I am ready‟. 65

 When I want to say that I love someone, I say it in English.  My cousins cannot speak French, so I talk to them in English.  I speak English when I go to my family who lives in Canada.

When/what do they write in English:

 I use English in e-mails.  I sometimes write down English words for my parents and my friends: „I love you‟, „friend‟, „girl‟, „boys‟, „dog‟, „kiss‟.  I use English in my messages I send with my mobile phone: „Hello‟.  After school I usually write some English words: „Hello‟, „baby‟, „one time‟.

The difference between the Flemish informants who sometimes or very often converse (IC) and those who do not (INC), is significant (p=0,023). The mean score of IC is 43,04 (SD 18,58), whereas the average mark of the INC is 33,49 (SD 16,49). Also in the Walloon school, both groups get a significantly different mark (p=0,000). Those who do engage in English conversations score an average of 28,08 (SD 20,07), as opposed to those who dot not, who score 13,29 (SD 9,71). In the case of my informants, this points at the effectiveness of frequently engaging in English conversations. This allows us hypothesising that this is a factor positively influencing incidental child L2 acquisition. Following this line of reasoning, we could say that this is one of the reasons explaining why the Walloons have a lower score on the vocabulary test: only 13,5% of them engage in conversations, whereas this amounts to 33,3% of the Flemish informants.

With respect to writing in English, both Flemish groups do not have a significantly different mark (p>0,05). Conversely, a significant difference is found between the Walloons who write in English and those who do not (p=0,000). The former averagely score 32,11 (SD 23,25), the latter only 13,39 (SD 9,22). Furthermore, when considering the graph, we see a rising tendency in both schools towards those who are write in English. Surprisingly, Flemish children only sometimes writing in English score the highest.

The graph and the results of the one-way ANOVA test allow us concluding that in general writing in English might possibly be a factor influencing natural child L2 acquisition. This too might be a factor accounting for the lower score on the vocabulary test: only 10,1% Walloons write in English, whereas this is 24,7% of the Flemings.

8.1.10 The informants’ conception of their English skills

I asked the informants if they consider themselves as good speakers of English. (See appendix questions 15 and)

Good English speaker Flemish informants Walloon informants Yes 39,5% 5,6% No 51,9% 79,8% +/- 4,9% 7,9% No answer 0% 3,4% I don’t know 3,7% 3,4%

This table illustrates that, of each school, a majority of the informants do not consider themselves to be good at speaking English. The Walloons have the highest percentage in this respect. The most important reason both groups give, is that they simply do not talk the language, because they have not yet learned it and there is little chance to practice it. Moreover, they claim that it is easier to understand than to talk. They also frequently answered that they do not know enough vocabulary to form sentences. Others say they have difficulties with the pronunciation and the accents. One Walloon girl said „Je parle anglais comme une vache espagnole‟1. A Flemish boy said „Ik kan enkel vloeken in het Engels‟2.

39,5% of the Flemish group answered positively to the question, as opposed to only 5,6% of the Walloons. As for the Flemish informants, one student claimed to speak good English, as he is preparing himself for the future: „the more languages you know, the more will be the chance to get a good job‟. Another said he can have nice conversations in English with his family and friends. In addition, one informant pointed out that she is improving each day because her brother systematically corrects her when she talks English. Several informants stated that for their age, as they do not have had any kind of English formal instruction yet, they consider themselves as good speakers. Moreover, three informants said that they have learned to speak English through their computer and play station games. Finally, one pupil said that her English is good because she frequently practices with her Cambodian aunt. With regard to the Walloon informants, three of them consider themselves to be good at speaking English because they frequently sing in English during their singing lessons. Another claims to be good at speaking English, because he already talked a lot with his godfather in New York. In addition, one student is convinced of his good English accent.

The one-way ANOVA test revealed a significant difference between the Flemish informants who claim to be good at speaking English and those who do not (p=0,004). The former group averagely scores 44,02 (SD 18,82), as opposed to the latter‟s mean mark of 30,56 (SD 14,81). Apparently, the Flemish informants are good at estimating their skills. (I have only considered the groups who answered yes or no, since the post hoc scheffe test indicated that the significant difference was especially

1 I talk English like a Spanish cow 2 I can only swear in English 68 to be found between those groups). Surprisingly, no difference is found between the Walloons who believe themselves to be good English speakers and those who do not (p>0,05). The 5,6% who claim to be good speakers of English seem to be not good at assessing their skills. I can conclude that the presence of a reference with some level of knowledge of the English language can be important to correctly assess one‟s own language skill. E.g. Jane knows she is not very good at English, because she hears her brother speaking it fluently.

These findings are confirmed by the results of an additional question. Namely, I asked the informants whether they consider themselves to know many English words.

Many English words Flemish informants Walloon informants Yes 58,0% 16,9% No 32,1% 70,8% +/- 4,9% 9% No answer 4,9% 3,4%

This chart shows that the majority of the Flemish informants (58,0%) think they know many English words (FW), whereas the contrary is true for the Walloons (WW). Only 16,9% answered positively to this question. Nonetheless this low percentage, it is an increase of 11,5% with respect to the previous question. 70,8% of the Walloons admitted they do not know many English terms (WNW), whereas this is only true for 32,1% of the Flemings (FNW). Only 4,9% Flemish and 9% Walloon informants claimed to have a little knowledge of words. Finally, 4,9% and 3,4% of the groups did not answer the question.

Again, a significant difference is detected between FW and FNW (p=0,000). The post hoc scheffe test indicated that the difference is to be found between those who answered yes and no. FW have an average mark of 45,14 (SD 18,01), as opposed to FNW who averagely score 24,31 (SD 9,33). This confirms the previous finding that the Flemish children are quite good at estimating their own skills. Conversely, WW and WNW are not significantly different. This again may point at the inability of 16,9% of the Walloon students to assess their skills.

8.1.11 Extracurricular activities

I asked the informants how and where they have learned the English words they know (see appendix question 17A). With respect to this question, they were given a list on which they could indicate the following possibilities: (1) reading English books, (2) surfing the Net, (3) playing English games, (4) watching English television and (5) listening to English music. Furthermore, they could add other possibilities to the list themselves.

This question gives a clear insight in which extracurricular activities the informants mostly engage. Moreover, it are mainly these activities through which the students are exposed to English and thus acquire it naturally and incidentally.

A. Reading English books

Extracurricular activity Flemish Walloon informants informants Reading English books 6 7,4% 6 13,5% Surfing the Net 4 45,7% 3 31,5% Playing English games 2 61,7% 4 24,7% Watching English TV 3 60,5% 5 20,2% Listening to English music 1 72,8% 1 64,0% Others 5 33,3% 2 44,9%

Flemish informants: 7,4% incidentally acquire English through reading English books, 45,7% through surfing the Net, 61,7% through playing English games, 60,5 % through watching English television programmes, 72,8% through listening to English music and 33,3% argue that other elements play a role in their acquisition of English. These factors are recorded below:

 Through hearing family members or friends talking English.  Through family members or friends who occasionally teach the informants English words.  Through watching English films.  Through reading English texts in class.

 Through hearing family members or friends studying their English for secondary school/evening classes/college.

Walloon informants: 13,5% incidentally acquire English through reading English books, 31,5% through surfing the Net, 24,7% through playing English games, 20,2 % through watching English television programmes, 64,0% through listening to English music and 44,9% mention other possibilities:

 Through reading strip cartoons.  Through asking family members or friends the meaning of an English word.  Through hearing family members or friends studying their English for secondary school/evening classes/college.  Through reading the words on the buttons of my keyboard.  Through being forced to speak English on holiday.  Through hearing family members or friends talking English.  Through going on holiday.

The chart illustrates that with respect to the Flemish students, listening to English music, playing English games and watching English television programmes are the most frequently indicated on the list. Surfing the Net is the next most important activity, followed by all the other possibilities that were listed above. Finally, it appears that almost none of the Flemish informants have learned English through reading books. The Walloon students have a quite different outcome. The three key factors are respectively listening to English music, all the other possibilities and surfing the Net. The next factor is playing English games, followed by watching English television programmes and last in the row is reading English books.

As we can see, there are different factors influencing the L2 acquisition of the Flemings and the Walloons. However, they have the most important and the least important factor in common, namely „listening to English music‟ and „reading English books‟. Seemingly, English pop music has become very popular among Belgian youngsters. „Reading English books‟ as the least influencing factor could be explained considering the fact that my informants have never had English instruction before, and are therefore barely familiar with English vocabulary, let alone with reading complete English sentences and texts.

Caroline Lippens‟ hypothesis (2010) stated that the three key factors influencing her twelve- and thirteen-year-old informants‟ incidental acquisition of English were respectively watching English television programmes, listening to English music and playing English games. With respect to my Flemish informants, the factors of her top three are identically the same as mine, besides the order of importance. Cassiman‟s findings (2005), on the contrary, do only partially coincide with mine. She found that watching English TV programmes was the key factor in her nine- and ten-year-old informants‟ L2 acquisition of English. The second and third most important factors were listening English music via the radio and searching the Net.

It is however clear that the Walloon informants have quite different key activities influencing their L2 acquisition. The fact that „watching English television programmes‟ is not part of it might be explained considering the fact that in the Walloon media English is much less important than in Flanders. Berns et al. (2007) state that the most important foreign channels in Wallonia are those with the respective language, namely French. „Walloon viewers devote substantial parts of their viewing time to channels from France‟ (Berns et al., 2007:32). Furthermore, these channels have chosen to broadcast English programmes in a dubbed version.

Conclusions for chapter 9.1.10

(1) When performing the one-way ANOVA test, we can see that in both schools those who read English books and those who do not, have no significantly different score (p>0,05). So reading books at their age probably is no factor influencing L2 acquisition. (2) The Flemish pupils who surf the Net (FS) and those who do not (FNS) have a significantly different score (p=0,002), as well as the Walloon students who surf the Net (WS) and those who do not (WNS) (p=0,031). FS have a mean score of 43,74 (SD 18,05), whereas FNS averagely score 31,41 (SD 15,74). WS get an average mark of 19,50 (SD 16,81), as opposed to WNS who score 13,34 (SD 9,60). So surfing the Net may be an effective extracurricular activity with respect to incidental child L2 acquisition.

(3) With respect to playing English games, the Flemish informants who answered positively have a significantly higher score than those who did not (p=0,043). The former group have a score of 40,19 (SD 17,12), the latter scores 31,97 (SD 18,05). No difference is found between the Walloon informants (p>0,05). Irrespective of that, the graph (see below) shows a rising trend towards those who play English games. Those who do not have an average score of 14,37 (SD 12,61), whereas those who do get 18,07 (SD 12,25) This may point at the effectiveness of playing English games in child L2 acquisition.

(4) When considering the activity of watching English TV programmes, again a difference is found between the Flemish children who do and those who do not (p=0,011). Those who do, have a mean mark of 41,09 (SD 15,99), the others averagely score 30,84 (SD 18,94). However, the two groups of the Walloon school have no significantly different mark (p>0,05). The conclusion I can draw from these results is that watching English TV programmes may possibly be an effective factor in child L2 acquisition. Given the rather vague question (English TV programmes can be dubbed or subtitled) and the surprising result that English TV is only beneficial for Flemings, I will discuss the factor „English TV‟ in more detail in chapter 8.2. The informants were able to give more subtle answers to the questions. As we will see, I will come to different conclusions. (5) No difference is found between the Flemish informants who listen to English music and those who do not (p>0,05). However, the graph (see below) shows a mounting tendency towards those who do listen. Those who do not score 35,20 (SD 21,84), those who do have a mark of 37,78 (SD 16,25). The Walloons who listen to English music and those who do not, score significantly different (p=0,054). The former have a mark of 17,20 (SD 12,97), as opposed to the latter who score 11,86 (SD 11,17). The results let us conclude

that listening to English music may be effective with regard to child L2 acquisition.

I investigated my informants‟ answers to this question in a different way as well. For each pupil I took the sum of the activities they engage in. The more they are involved in English extracurricular activities, the higher is their „score‟ on what I will call „English involvement‟. The categorisation that goes from „no involvement‟ to „very high involvement‟ is based on how many activities one is engaged in (that could be respectively zero, one, two, three, four, or five activities). It is important to note that I only considered (1) reading English books, (2) surfing the Net, (3) playing English games, (4) watching English television and (5) listening to English music, since the factor „other possibilities‟ is rather vague and heterogeneous. The results are recorded below:

Involvement Flemish informants Walloon informants No involvement 9,9% 18% Minimal involvement 17,3% 36% Little involvement 21% 23,6%

Medium involvement 22,2% 19,1% High involvement 25,9% 3,4% Very high involvement 3,7% 0%

This table illustrates that the Walloons are clearly less involved in English activities than the Flemings: a total of 77,6% is not, minimally or little involved in extracurricular activities, whereas this is only true for 48,2% of the Flemish informants. Only 22,5% of the Walloons are involved in a minimum of three activities, as opposed to a majority of 51,8% of the Flemings.

There are various significant differences found within the Flemish groups: first between the groups „no involvement‟ (NI) and „very high involvement‟ (VHI) (p=0,054), also between „minimal involvement‟ (MinI) and VHI (p=0,056) and finally between „little involvement‟ (LI) and VHI (p=0,024). NI has a mean score of 30,00 (SD 26,07), MinI of 32,46 (SD 18,09), LI of 29,32 (SD 10,97) and VHI averagely scores 67,67 (SD 8,74). On the chart (see below) we can see a clearly growing trend towards „very high involvement‟.

The conclusion we might draw from this, is that the more Flemish children are involved in extracurricular English activities, the higher their score will be.

Within the Walloon groups, there is no significant difference detected (p>0,05). This is a remarkable finding, because this possibly points at the fact that their knowledge of English vocabulary is not or barely influenced by the amount of activities they engage in. Furthermore, when we consider the graph (see below), there is a slight rise from „no involvement‟ to „little involvement‟, followed by an unexpected fall towards „high involvement‟.

The tendencies on the graphs of both schools are completely different. Moreover, the trend on the graph of the Flemings is more as we have expected it to be, whereas the graph of the Walloons shows a rather unexpected trend. These results require further investigation.

We might consider the fact that 77,6% of the Walloons is not, minimally or little involved in extracurricular activities (as opposed to 48,2% of the Flemings) as a reason explaining their lower score with respect to the vocabulary test.

8.2 English television programmes

8.2.1 Subtitled English TV programmes (SP)

The informants had to indicate how many hours a day they watch subtitled English TV programmes. (See appendix question 19)

Hours a day Flemish informants Walloon informants 0 min 9,9% 73,0% Up to 30 min 17,3% 13,5% 30 min – 1h 18,5% 5,6% 1h - 1h30 19,8% 3,4% 1h30-2h 11,1% 3,4% 2h – 2h30 3,7% 0% 2h30 – 3h 7,4% 0% More than 3h 11,1% 0% No answer 0% 1,1%

As for the Flemish informants, the amount of hours they spend watching subtitled English TV programmes (SP) is very spread. It is however clear that they all, except for 9,9%, watch SP, as opposed to a clear majority of Walloons (73%) who never watch it. Most of the Flemings watch one hour to one hour and thirty minutes a day.

It is interesting to find that according to the amount of hours watching SP, there are significant differences between the various Flemish groups (p=0,005). Obviously those who never watch (FN) SP significantly differ with those who watch 1h-1h 30min (F1h30) (p= 0,042) and also with those watching 2h-2h 30min (F2h30) (p=0,036). FN get a mean score of 22,11 (SD 15,61), whereas F1h30 have a score of 44,50 (SD 18,32) and F2h30 score 58,50 (SD 13,61).

On the whole, if we take a look at this chart, we can see a rising trend: the more the informants watch SP a day, the higher are their scores. Surprisingly, the trend is going downwards when the informants watch more than 2h30min. (Maybe the chart is preventing us from watching too much TV programmes, showing us that one is rewarded when steering a middle course in watching TV). With respect to the Walloon informants, no difference is found between those who watch a little SP and those who do not (p>0,05). In actual fact, we should not consider these results, since the statistical power of the group watching SP is too low. Irrespective of that, the statistical power of the Flemish group is sufficiently high to draw general conclusions: the more one watches subtitled English TV programmes, the more he/she will be influenced positively with respect to the L2 acquisition of English. Considering the very high percentage of Walloons who never or hardly ever watch SP (see table above), we could say that this also explains their very low score on the vocabulary test.

8.2.2 English television programmes without subtitles (not subtitled programmes = NSP)

The informants had to indicate on a list how many hours a day they watch English TV programmes without subtitles (NSP). (See appendix question 20) Hours a day Flemish informants Walloon informants 0 min 40,7% 91% Up to 30 min 19,8% 3,4% 30 min – 1h 14,8% 2,2% 1h - 1h30 6,2% 0% 1h30-2h 9,9% 1,1% 2h – 2h30 1,2% 0% 2h30 – 3h 1,2% 0% More than 3h 6,2% 0% No answer 0% 2,2%

The majority group of each school never watches NSP: 40,7% of the Flemish informants and 91% of the Walloon informants. The percentage is the highest for the Walloons. Consequently, a great minority of the Walloon group does watch NSP. Moreover, 3,4% of those only watch up to 30 min; 2,2% watch 30 min up to 1h and 1,1% claim to watch 1h 30 min up to 2h. As for the Flemish informants who watch NSP, a majority watches up to 1h, whereas a minority watches more than 1h a day. Obviously, more informants watch SP than NSP. Those who watch SP are 90,1% of the Flemish informants and 25,9% of the Walloon informants, whereas those who watch NSP are 59,3% of the Flemish and 6,8% of the Walloon informants.

No significant difference is found between the Flemish informants watching NSP and those who do not, and neither between the Walloon groups (p>0,05). As for the latter, again the sample size of those who watch NSP is too low, not allowing us to draw conclusions from it. The Flemish sample size on the other hand is sufficiently high to support a general hypothesis.

If we however look at the chart representing the amount of hours watched NSP by the Flemish school, we can distinguish a rising tendency towards 1h-1h30. This may point at the fact that the more they watch English TV programmes without subtitles, the more they acquire English incidentally. Regardless of this tendency, we have to take into account that no significant difference is detected. Thus, we cannot state that watching NSP influences the incidental child L2 acquisition of English. An explanation could be that watching English TV without subtitles requires an already acquired level of English. Possibly, my informants have not yet reached this level.

8.2.3 English TV programmes or Dutch/French TV programmes

I asked the informants to indicate on the list what is true for them: „Do you watch more English television programmes than Dutch/French ones? Or is it the other way around? Or do you exclusively watch English or Dutch/French ones?‟ (See appendix question 24)

Flemings Walloons I never watch TV 0% I never watch TV 2,2% More English TV 25,9% More English TV 3,4% programmes programmes More Dutch TV 46,9% More French TV 41,6% programmes programmes Only English TV 0% Only English TV 0% programmes programmes Only Dutch TV 6,2% Only French TV 52,8% programmes programmes Equal 0% Equal 0%

The majority of the French pupils only watches programmes in their mother tongue, whereas this is only true for 6,2% of the Flemish students. Of course, most of the Flemings still watch more programmes in Dutch than in English, and likewise, a great percentage of the Walloons watch more French than English TV. In addition, with respect to „watching more English than French/Dutch programmes‟, the Flemish informants outstrip the Walloons.

Flemish informants: the majority (46,9%) watches more Dutch than English TV programmes, whereas 25,9% watch more English than Dutch TV. 6,2% only watch Dutch TV programmes.

The groups specified their answers: (1) 46,9%: more Dutch than English TV programmes:  We almost have no English channels.  I do not understand English very well. /It is easier to watch TV in our own language.  I do not like to read the subtitles.  Because there are more Dutch TV programmes.  My father does not want to watch English TV programmes.  Dutch programmes are more fun.

 I usually watch Ketnet, but afterwards I watch English films. / I prefer Dutch TV programmes, but films are better in English.

(2) 25,9%: more English than Dutch TV programmes:  There simply are more TV programmes in English.  They are more fun.  In this way, I practice my English. / It is good to watch English TV, to prepare myself for the English courses next year in secondary school.  I find Dutch programmes are tasteless.  Thanks to our TV satellite link, we can watch lots of English TV.  The English version usually is the original version.  They are my favourite programmes.  They are funnier.

Walloon informants: 2,2% never watch English, French or Dutch TV. The majority (52,8%) only watches French TV programmes. 41,6% watch more French than English TV programmes, as opposed to 3,4% who watch more programmes in English than French.

Their motives: (1) 52,8%: only French TV programmes:  I completely understand the film in French / It is easier to understand in French  I do not like to read the subtitles  “C‟est ma vie”3

(2) 41,6%: more French TV programmes:  I do not understand English  I do not have any - many English channels / It is difficult to find English TV programmes  I still want to improve my French  There are much more French than English TV programmes

3 “It‟s my life” 83

(3) 3,4%: more English TV programmes:  My grandparents are English and I very often watch English TV with them  I love to hear the English language

A significant difference is revealed between the Flemish informants who watch more English than Dutch TV programmes and those who only watch Dutch TV (p=0,031). The first group has an average mark of 46,33 (SD 17,80), whereas the second group scores 20,60 (SD 11,90).

The table illustrates a downward tendency: those who watch more English than Dutch TV score the highest, followed by those who watch as much English as Dutch TV. Those watching more Dutch than English TV again score somewhat lower and the lowest marks are of those who only watch Dutch TV.

Within the various Walloon groups, there is no significant difference detected (p>0,05). It would be however premature to draw conclusions from these results because the group watching English TV is not a representative sample (3,4%), whereas the sample size of the Flemings watching English TV is high enough to come to a general conclusion. We thus may hypothesise that watching more English TV programmes than programmes in the mother tongue is more effective with regard to incidental English L2 acquisition. Regarding the effectiveness of English TV among the Flemish pupils and regarding the fact that much more Flemish than Walloon children watch English TV, we could possibly presume that this, among various other reasons, explains why the latter score significantly lower than the former on the vocabulary test.

8.2.4 Dubbing or subtitling

I asked the informants if they prefer watching a subtitled version of an English television programme/film or a voice-over version. (See appendix question 24 C)

Version Flemish informants Walloon informants Dubbed version 35,8% 76,4% Subtitled version 60,5% 19,1% No preference 3,7% 4,5%

60,5% of the Flemish informants prefer to watch a subtitled English TV programme/film, whereas this is only true for 19,1% of the Walloons. Conversely, 35,8% of the Flemings would rather watch the dubbed version. This is less than the half of the Walloon children who prefer dubbing (76,4%). 3,7% of the Flemish and 4,5% of the Walloon group have no preference.

(1) Flemish informants who prefer subtitling specify their choice:  I prefer to hear the original voices of the actors / the original voices are more „cool‟  The English voices are funnier  English is a much nicer language to listen to

 I learn a lot more when I watch a film with subtitles: listening to the English language and reading the Dutch subtitles at the same time is very instructive/ I prefer the subtitled version to practice my English / In this way we can learn the right pronunciation of English  A dubbed version is really boring/ is not pleasing / is stupid  It is odd when the movement of the actor‟s mouth does not coincide with the sound of the voice you hear / It is annoying that an actor‟s mouth and lips are still moving when there is no sound anymore.  The original version of films is always nicer / more exciting  I find it strange that an actor gets a voice that is not his/her own  I am more concentrated when I read the subtitles

(2) Flemish informants who prefer dubbing:  When I read the subtitles for too long, I get a headache  I can more easily follow the story / I understand everything in Dutch  It is too difficult to listen and read at the same time. So why choose the hard way if there is an easy one too?  Subtitles are annoying: they prevent you from seeing the complete screen  I do not like to read  I usually have not enough time to read the subtitles  For new films, I prefer the dubbed version, then I can watch the full images  When we go to the cinema, we choose the dubbed version of the film, then „the little children‟ are also able to follow

(3) Walloons who prefer subtitling:  At times I prefer watching a film with English subtitles, because I love the language  It is more instructive / I learn English words in this way  I prefer to hear the original voices

(4) Walloons who prefer dubbing:  It is easier to understand / I simply do not understand a word of English / It is difficult to decipher English accents

 English people talk too fast to understand well  I cannot see the full image with subtitles  I have not enough time to read the subtitles/ The subtitled version involves too much reading  Subtitles are bizarre  Subtitles prevent you from watching the action  I am not used to watch a subtitled version  I simply have no choice: there are not many channels broadcasting  When I watch a film, I want to relax and not constantly trying to understand what is being said / subtitles are too tiring  “Parce que c‟est ma vie, c‟est mon choix”4

Various Walloon informants said that their channels do not or very rarely broadcast subtitled versions of TV programmes or films. Berns et al. (2007) confirm this, saying that „the Francophone market is so important that foreign films of possible interest to the Francophone audience are dubbed in spite of additional costs for doing so‟ (Berns et al., 2007:32). The RTBF is the only channel sometimes showing the un- dubbed version of a foreign film. However, according to Berns et al. (2007) only 10% watch this version. Consequently, my Walloon informants are not used to read subtitles and to hear the English language. That is the reason why a great majority argued that „English is difficult to understand‟, „I have not enough time to read the subtitles‟, etc. In addition, it has become a habit to choose the dubbed version of a film. If the Walloon broadcasting system does not change this situation, the Walloon population will keep a certain distance from the English language and the British/American culture.

A significant difference is found within the Flemish group and more specifically between those who prefer dubbing (FD) and those who prefer subtitling (FS) (p=0,010). FD averagely score 28,90 (SD 13,23), whereas FS get a much higher mark of 41,26 (SD 18,99). No difference is found within the Walloon groups (p>0,05). Again, the group preferring subtitles has no adequate statistical power.

4 “Because it‟s my life, it‟s my choice” 87

Since the statistical power of all the Flemish groups is sufficiently high, we may conclude that children usually watching the original TV programme or film with subtitles reach a higher level in their spontaneous L2 acquisition than those who prefer the dubbed version. Following this line of reasoning, this could be one of the reasons why Walloon children on the whole score significantly lower than the Flemish ones: a vast majority of the Walloons watches dubbed versions of TV programmes and films. It should be however noted that FD still has a significantly higher score than the Walloon pupils watching dubbed programmes and films (WD) (p=0,000): FD has a mean mark of 28,89 (SD 13,23), whereas WD only scores 16,07 (13,54). So clearly, there are other factors causing the difference between Walloons and Flemings.

8.3 Computer

8.3.1 The amount of time spent on the computer

The informants had to indicate on a list how many hours a day they spend working or playing on the computer. (See appendix question 29)

Hours a day Flemish informants Walloon informants 0 min 4,9% 18% Up to 30 min 22,2% 28,1% 30 min – 1h 23,5% 25,8% 1h - 1h30 11,1% 12,4% 1h30-2h 9,9% 7,9% 2h – 2h30 7,4% 3,4% 2h30 – 3h 7,4% 4,5% More than 3h 13,6% 0%

4,9% of the Flemish group never use the computer, while this is true for 18% of the Walloon group. A large part of the Flemish informants (22,2%) and the largest part of the Walloons (28,1%) spend up to 30 min a day working/playing on the computer. In addition, 23,5% of the Flemish and a little more of the Walloon informants (25,8%) spend 30min to 1h on their computers. Those who work 1h to 1h30 min are 11,1% of the Flemings and 12,4% of the Walloons. Increasingly less children spend more than

1h and 30 min on their computers, except for a surprising peak of 13,6% Flemish pupils on more than 3h.

In order to specify this rather vague question, I asked the informants to record why they exactly use their computers: to do their homework or do they especially use it for entertainment?

Flemish informants Walloon informants Only homework 3,7% 4,5% Only entertainment 27,2% 29,2% Both 66,7% 60,7% No answer 2,5% 5,6%

It is clear that the majority of both groups uses the computer for both their homework and entertainment. Still, a high percentage of both schools use the computer only for leisure activities. A great minority would use the computer only for their work.

These are the specifications of the informants of both schools, as they were exactly the same:

(1) Work:  Surfing on the Net to look things up  Working on the school website (e.g. www.bingel.be on which we get our assignments)  Microsoft Word

(2) Entertainment:  Gaming: Runescape, Age of Empire III, Age of Empire I, the Sims, gaming sites, FarmVille via Facebook, Plasma burst  YouTube: watching video clips or films and listening to music  Social Network sites: Facebook, Netlog  Chatting: MSN Messenger, Facebook, Skype  Mail: Hotmail

 Watching films and series online  Skype  Watching Sporza

With respect to the leisure activities, the informants exclusively list activities performed on the Net. According to some pupils, much of these online games are completely in English. Moreover, people from all over the world participate at these games and communicate with each other in English in the chat room or by using a headset. With respect to the Flemish students, those engaging in these leisure activities almost automatically come into contact with English. As for the Walloons, most of the same leisure activities are in French (e.g. loading = télécharger, software= le logiciel, etc). The games may constitute an exception.

Turning to the first part of this section, it is interesting to notice a significant difference between Walloon children never using the computer and those who use it 1h to 1h30min a day. The former have a very low score of 6,72 (SD 5,34), whereas the latter group averagely scores 24,77 (SD 17,84). Within the Flemish school there are no significant differences (p>0,05). On the chart (see below) we can however notice a rising trend towards 1h to 1h30. We thus could conclude that in general spending 1h to 1h30min on the computer is possibly beneficial with respect to incidental child L2 acquisition. Considering the fact that 49,9% of the Flemings spend more than 1h – 1h30 on the computer and this only amounts to 28,2% of the Walloons, we could hypothesise that this is another reason explaining their difference in score on the vocabulary test.

It should be noted however that the scores of the Flemish and Walloon pupils spending 1h to 1h30 on the computer still significantly differ (p=0,030). The former have a mark of 44,33 (SD 19,23), the latter only score 24,77 (SD 17,84). Apparently, the impact of using the computer is much bigger with respect to the Walloon informants. We thus may hypothesise that one who already has some basic language skills, gets less benefits spending more time on the computer.

8.4 Music

8.4.1 English music or Dutch/French music

I asked the informants if they mostly listen to English music or to Dutch/French music. (See appendix question 33)

Music Flemish informants Walloon informants Dutch music 8,6% 0% French music 0% 15,9% English music 77,8% 49,4% English & Dutch music 13,6% 0% English & French music 0% 33,7%

The vast majority of both schools listens mostly to English music. 33,7% of the Walloons listen to both English and French music, whereas only 13,6% of the Flemings listen to both English and Dutch music. A minority of both groups prefer the music in their mother tongue. Various reasons were recorded:

(1) The informants who listen more frequently to English music:  The most beautiful songs are produced in English  I am more used to English songs  It learn a little English when I listen to and sing English songs  Songs sung in English sound nicer  English songs are better / more fun / more cool  English music is more my style  English music is broadcast more frequently on the radio  Most famous singers sing in English  There is more English music  English songs have nicer melodies  There is nicer rap music in English  My two idols sing in English: Lady Gaga and Katy Perry  English music is ten times better than French music  All those Flemish songs are ugly  Flemish songs can be nice, but they are not my style

 Dutch music is very traditional  Dutch music is boring (“ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”)

(2) The informants who listen to Dutch or French music:  I do not understand English music

Within the Flemish school, those who listen more frequently to English music and those only listening to Dutch music have a significantly different score (p=0,036). The first group scores 38,73 (SD 17,30), whereas the second group has a mark of 20,57 (SD 10,13). No difference is found between the Walloon groups (p>0,05). Irrespective of this, the chart (see below) illustrates a rising trend towards those who mostly listen to English music: the informants more listening to only French music score the lowest, those who equally listen to French and English music are next in the row, followed by the highest scores of those who listen to English music.

These findings may suggest that frequently listening to English music has a beneficial effect on the natural child L2 acquisition. The fact that there are 26,8% more Flemish than Walloon informants listening to English music might possibly explain their generally higher score on the vocabulary test.

8.4.2 Do the informants understand the English songs?

I wanted to know if the informants generally understand the lyrics of the songs they listen to. (See appendix, question, 34)

Understanding the Flemish informants Walloon informants English lyrics Yes 34,6% 12,4% No 51,9% 76,4% Sometimes 13,6% 11,2%

The majority of both groups does not understand the meaning of English lyrics. Conversely, a considerable part of the Flemish school (34,6%) claims to understand most of it, whereas this is only true for 12,4% of the Walloon informants. A minority of both groups only sometimes understand what is being sung.

The Walloon informants who answered negatively to this question have a mean score of 12,97 (SD 9,84), which is significantly lower than those who sometimes understand English lyrics (p=0,005). The latter get an average mark of 26,40 (SD 16,42). Those answering yes have a mark of This is a rather surprising result, since we would expect that those who claim to understand every word would have the highest score. However, I observed the same situation within the Flemish groups (see graph below). Even though they do not significantly differ between them, there is a rising tendency towards the group who sometimes understands the lyrics. These findings do not allow us to hypothesise that partly understanding an English song is beneficial for the L2 acquisition, because we cannot know which is the cause of what: is it just because the pupils already have a high level of English that they are able to understand the songs, or vice versa, just because they are able to partly understand songs, that their level of English is improving.

We can only speculate that these results stress the sincerity of the informants‟ answers: those who answered negatively to the question, do have a low score, whereas those who answered that they sometimes or always understand a song score higher.

9 Conclusion

In this research I examined the key factors that influence the incidental second language acquisition of ten- to thirteen-year-old children before the input of English instruction. I more specifically conducted a contrastive analysis of Flemish and Walloon informants who are in the fifth and sixth year of primary school.

By means of a questionnaire, I first aimed at finding out some generalities of my informants. Namely, their sex and age, which language they speak at home, if they have ever been to an English-speaking country before and if they have English acquaintances. Moreover, I wanted to find out their attitude towards English and their motivation to learn it, as well as the conception of their own language skills. In addition, the extent to which they speak and write English was aimed at, as well as the extracurricular activities they engage in. I particularly focused on their habits and preferences with respect to watching English TV programmes and films, playing/working on the computer and listening to English music.

Next to the questionnaire, I tested the informants on 75 English words by means of a written vocabulary test. The words belonged to different semantic fields. As the results provided me of an insight into the informants‟ already acquired level of English productive lexical knowledge, I could link them to the extent to which they are exposed to English. This allowed me to formulate various hypotheses concerning the possible key parameters influencing their spontaneous L2 acquisition.

First of all, the results of the vocabulary test were surprising. The Flemish pupils scored significantly higher than the Walloons. The former have an average mark of 37,04, whereas the latter group only scores 15,28. The Flemings were able to fill out about half of the test, as opposed to the Walloons who could only fill out one fifth. This illustrates the difference in degree of exposure to English.

In this paragraph, I will consider my hypotheses with respect to the factors which appeared to have no influence on 10- to 13-year-old children‟s incidental L2 acquisition of English. I have come to these general conclusions by testing if there were significant differences within the various groups of answers of the Flemish school on the one hand and the Walloon school on the other. The results showed that the L2 acquisition of none of my informants is influenced by the language they

96 speak at home (chapter 8.1.1). Sex neither appears to be of importance, since the boys and girls approximately had the same level of English (chapter 8.1.2). A third possible factor might be going on holiday to a country in which English is the major means of communication (chapter 8.1.4). Again, this appeared to be no decisive parameter. A possible explanation is that on holiday everything is arranged by the parents or the holiday responsible. In other words, the adults are the main speakers. „Letting the children order the drinks‟ is not sufficient with regard to the incidental learning of language by a child. In addition, I found that a certain attitude towards English, may it be positive or negative, and the motivation to learn English neither are factors influencing the spontaneous child L2 acquisition (chapter 8.1.6). This finding confirms Gass & Selinker‟s statement (2001) that „differential motivation does not appear to impact a child‟s success or lack of success in learning language‟ (Gass & Selinker, 2001:175). However, it goes against de Bot et al.‟s (2007) assumption that „[...] a high motivation and a positive attitude towards a second language and its community help second-language learners learning‟ (de Bot et al., 2007:72). Possibly, the influence of one‟s attitude and motivation is not direct, as my findings appear to illustrate, but it could however be that one‟s attitude towards a language and motivation to learn it might influence the extent to which one chooses to be exposed to that language. So in point of fact, those factors could have an indirect influence on the L2 acquisition of children. With regard to the informants‟ conception of English, be it difficult or easy, I found that this neither is an influencing factor (chapter 8.1.8). When considering the extracurricular activities, reading English books appeared to be the only activity not influencing the children‟s L2 acquisition (chapter 8.1.11). This could be due to the fact that my informants have never had English instruction before, and are therefore barely familiar with English vocabulary, let alone with reading complete English sentences and texts. Finally, watching not subtitled English TV programmes does not influence the incidental child L2 acquisition of English (chapter 8.2.2). An explanation could be that watching not subtitled English TV requires an already acquired level of English. Possibly, my informants have not yet reached this level.

Regarding the fact that these parameters have no influence on the L2 acquisition of my informants, they are neither factors responsible for the difference in scores of the Flemish and the Walloon groups.

I will now consider my hypotheses regarding the factors that appeared to be effective with respect to child L2 acquisition and therefore, might also be able to explain the difference in score between the Flemings and Walloons. First, a well-structured instruction of English through evening classes or language camps possibly is an affective factor (chapter 8.1.7). As I have mentioned before, this is not a form of incidental acquisition. Nonetheless, it takes place outside the formal structure of education. More Walloon children have taken this kind of instruction. However, they still score considerably lower than the Flemish children. On the other hand the Flemish children engage more in extracurricular activities where they come in contact with English. This shows that incidental learning is a very important factor in second language acquisition. Second, frequently conversing in English also may possibly be a decisive factor in L2 acquisition (chapter 8.19). We have seen that twice as much Flemish informants engage in conversations than the Walloons and can therefore be held responsible for the lower test scores of the Walloon informants. Third, frequently writing in English appears to be a factor influencing natural child L2 acquisition (chapter 8.1.9). This too might be a factor accounting for the lower score of the Walloons on the vocabulary test: more Flemings than Walloons write in English. The results pointed out that surfing the Net, playing English games, watching English TV programmes and listening to English music are effective (chapter 8.1.11). The more informants engage in these activities, the higher is their mark. Surprisingly, this statement seems to be especially true for the Flemish students. I will now discuss these extracurricular activities more in depth. Watching subtitled English TV programmes is more beneficial than watching dubbed TV programmes with regard to child L2 acquisition (chapters 8.2.1, 8.2.3 and 8.2.4). However, in general Walloon people have less or no access to subtitled TV programmes or films. Instead they are often dubbed. This could be one of the reasons why Walloon children on the whole score significantly lower than the Flemish ones. Furthermore, in general spending 1h to 1h30min on the computer is possibly beneficial with respect to incidental child L2 acquisition (chapter 8.3.1). Considering the fact that far more Flemings than Walloons spend more than 1h – 1h30 on the computer, we could hypothesise that this is another reason explaining their difference in score on the vocabulary test. In addition, frequently listening to English music has a beneficial effect on the natural child L2 acquisition (chapter 8.4.1).

Again, more Flemish than Walloon informants listen to English music which might possibly explain their generally higher score on the vocabulary test.

As regards the Walloon informants, having an English acquaintance within your close environment might possibly be a factor influencing the L2 acquisition. Since we see no influence on the Flemish informants, it could be that the amount of contact between the acquaintance and the informants is another factor that influences their L2 acquisition. It may be possible that the contact between the English acquaintance and the Walloons is more intense. Another explanation could be that the impact of influence of an English acquaintance on child L2 acquisition depends on the already acquired level of knowledge.

Throughout my dissertation I came across a number of factors that deserve a more in-depth research (chapters 8.1.1 and 8.1.11). In addition, I would like to offer another suggestion. In my view, it also seems relevant to address attention to the IQ of the informants. Possibly, the level of intelligence also plays a major role in the incidental L2 acquisition.

As a final remark and to summarise, it became obvious throughout this dissertation that the informants‟ L2 acquisition of English depends to a great extent on their exposure to English in daily life: especially popular culture is rich in opportunities for contact with English. It has become clear that the intensity of exposure however differs in the two language communities in Belgium: the British and American culture is much less present in Wallonia than in Flanders.

10 Bibliography

 Appel, René & Anne Vermeer. 1994. Tweede-taalverwerving en tweede- taalonderwijs. Bussum: Coutinho.  Berns, Margie, Marie-Thérèse Claes, Kees de Bot, Riet Evers, Uwe Hasebrink, Ineke Huibregtse, Claude Truchot & Per van der Wijst. 2007. English in Europe. In Margie Berns, Kees de Bot & Uwe Hasebrink (eds.), In the presence of English: Media and European youth, 15-42. New York, NY: Springer.  Bot, Kees de, Wander Lowie & Marjolijn Verspoor. 2007. Second Language Acquisition: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.  Cassiman, Liesbet. 2005. Knowledge of English lexis among Flemish children before the age of formal instruction: where does it come from? Unpublished dissertation: University Ghent.  Crystal, David. 2003. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Crystal, David. 2003. English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  DeKeyser, Robert. 2006. Implicit and Explicit Learning. Doughty, Catherine J. & Michael H. Long (eds.). 2006. The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. p. 313-348.  De Smet, Marleen. 1977. On the situation of English as a second language in Flemish schools: An investigation concerning pupils‟ motivation for English as a second language, and the relationship between this motivation and a number of objective criteria. Unpublished dissertation: Catholic University of Leuven.  Doughty, Catherine J. & Michael H. Long. 2006. The Scope of Inquiry and Goals of SLA. Doughty, Catherine J. & Michael H. Long (eds.). 2006. The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. p. 3-16.  Ellis, Rod. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Ellis, Rod. 1997. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

100

 Ellis, Rod & Gary Barkhuizen. 2005. Analysing Learner Language . Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Gass, Susan M. & Larry Selinker. 2001. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Goethals, Michael. 1997. English in Flanders (Belgium). In World Englishes, Vol 16, No. 1. Blackwell Publishers. p. 105-114.  Hulstijn, Jan H. 2006. Incidental and Intentional Learning. Doughty, Catherine J. & Michael H. Long (eds.). 2006. The handbook of second language acquisition . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. p.349-381.  Jenkins, Jennifer. 2006. World Englishes: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.  Kachru, Braj B. 1986. The alchemy of English: the spread, functions and models of non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press.  Kachru, Braj B. 1983. The other tongue: English across cultures. Oxford: Pergamon Press.  Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2007. World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English languag teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Krashen, Stephen D. & Tracy D. Terrell. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.  Kuppens, An. 2007. “De invloed van het mediagebruik op de verwerving van Engelse woordenschat: een empirische studie bij Vlaamse jongeren.” Tijdschrift voor communicatiewetenschap 35(4). p. 325-336.  Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Michael H. Long. 1997. An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York: Longman Inc.  Lippens, Caroline. 2010. The incidental acquisition of English before the input of formal instruction: a contrastive analysis of TSO, B-stream & ASO in Flanders. Unpublished dissertation: University Ghent.  Lippens, Charlotte. 2010. The English productive vocabulary of secondary school children in Flanders prior to English productive vocabulary. Unpublished dissertation: University Ghent.  McArthur, Tom. 2003. Oxford guide to world English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

101

 McLaughlin, Barry. 1988. Theories of Second-Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.  Schneider, Edgar W. 2011. English around the world: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Siegel, Jeff. 2006. Input and Interaction. Doughty, Catherine J. & Michael H. Long (eds.). 2006. The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, p. 178-223.  Smith, Michael Sharwood. 1994. Second Language Learning: Theoretical Foundations. London: Longman.

102

11 Appendix

11.1 Questionnaire (Dutch)

Thesisonderzoek Siona Houthuys Master Taal- en Letterkunde: Engels-Italiaans Academiejaar: 2010-2011

Naam: ______

Klas: ______

Geboortedatum: ____/____/______

103

I. ALGEMENE VRAGEN

1. Spreek je thuis Engels? JA / NEEN → duid aan wat voor jou van toepassing is

Zo neen: welke taal spreek je thuis? ______

2. Ben je ooit al eens in Groot-Brittannië geweest? JA / NEEN

Zo ja:

A. hoe lang?______

B. wanneer?______

C. waarom was je daar?

______

3. Ben je ooit al eens in de Verenigde Staten van Amerika geweest? JA/NEEN

Zo ja:

A. hoe lang?______

B. wanneer?______

C. waarom was je daar?

______

4. Ben je ooit al in een ander land geweest waar Engels gesproken wordt?

JA / NEEN

Zo ja:

A. welk land? ______

B. wanneer? ______

104

C. hoe lang ? ______

D. waarom was je daar?

______

5. Ken je iemand die Engels spreekt, vb. een familielid of familievriend?

JA / NEEN Zo ja: wie? Geef uitleg.

______

6. Vind je Engels een mooie taal? JA / NEEN

Waarom wel/niet?

______

7. Zou je graag nu al Engels leren? JA / NEEN

Waarom wel/niet?

______

8. Kijk je er naar uit om Engels te leren volgend jaar? JA / NEEN

Waarom wel/niet?

______

9. Vind je het nodig om Engels te leren? JA / NEEN

Waarom wel/niet?

______

105

______

10. Heb je ooit al eens Engelse les gekregen, bijvoorbeeld op taalkamp?

JA / NEEN, Zo ja:

A. waar? ______

B. wanneer? ______

C. hoe lang? ______

D. vond je dit leuk? JA/NEEN

Waarom wel/niet?

______

11. Vind je dat het Engels een gemakkelijke taal is om te begrijpen? JA / NEEN

Waarom wel/niet?

______

12. Vind je dat het Engels een gemakkelijke taal is om te spreken? JA / NEEN

Waarom wel/niet?

______

13. Voer je zelf wel eens gesprekken in het Engels? JA / NEEN

Zo ja:

A. wanneer?______

B. met wie? ______

C. in welke situatie? ______

______

106

14. Schrijf je wel eens in het Engels?

A. wanneer? ______

B. wat schijf je dan zoal?______

______

15. Vind je van jezelf dat je goed Engels kan spreken? JA / NEEN

Waarom wel/niet?______

______

16. Zou je van jezelf zeggen dat je veel Engelse woorden kent? JA / NEEN

17.

A. Hoe / waar heb je de Engelse woorden die je kent geleerd?

Kruis aan wat voor jou van toepassing is. Je mag meer dan 1 vakje aankruisen!

□ A. Door Engelstalige boeken te lezen

□ B. Door te surfen op het Internet

□ C. Door Engelstalige spelletjes te spelen

□ D. Door naar Engelstalige televisieprogramma’s te kijken

□ E. Door naar Engelstalige muziek te luisteren

□ F. Andere: ______

______

B. Geef extra uitleg bij vraag 17 A:

- noem op welke buitenschoolse activiteiten je precies doet waarbij je in contact komt met het Engels EN

107

- geef telkens aan welke woorden je daarbij vaak hoort/leest

______

18. Zijn er buitenschoolse activiteiten die je doet met het doel om Engels te leren?

JA / NEEN

Zo ja: wat dan?

______

II. ENGELSTALIGE & NEDERLANDSTALIGE TELEVISIEPROGRAMMA’S

19. Hoeveel uur per dag kijk je naar ondertitelde Engelstalige televisieprogramma’s?

Zet een kruisje bij wat voor jou van toepassing is:

Tot 30 minuten per dag 30 minuten tot 1 uur per dag 1 u - 1 u 30 minuten per dag 1 u 30 minuten - 2 u per dag 2 u - 2 u 30 minuten per dag 2 u 30 minuten - 3 u per dag Meer dan 3 u per dag

20. Hoeveel uur per dag kijk je naar niet-ondertitelde Engelstalige televisieprogramma’s?

108

Zet een kruisje bij wat voor jou van toepassing is:

Tot 30 minuten per dag 30 minuten tot 1 uur per dag 1 u - 1 u 30 minuten per dag 1 u 30 minuten - 2 u per dag 2 u - 2 u 30 minuten per dag 2 u 30 minuten - 3 u per dag Meer dan 3 u per dag

21. Hoeveel dagen per week kijk je naar ondertitelde Engelstalige televisieprogramma’s?

Zet een kruisje bij wat voor jou van toepassing is:

Nooit 1 dag per week 2 dagen per week 3 dagen per week 4 dagen per week 5 dagen per week 6 dagen per week Alle dagen van de week

22. Hoeveel dagen per week kijk je naar niet-ondertitelde Engelstalige televisieprogramma’s?

Zet een kruisje bij wat voor jou van toepassing is:

Nooit 1 dag per week 2 dagen per week 3 dagen per week 4 dagen per week

109

5 dagen per week 6 dagen per week Alle dagen van de week

23. Welke Engelstalige televisieprogramma’s bekijk je regelmatig?

Duid ze aan op onderstaande lijst. Je mag de lijst ook aanvullen (onderaan)!

(I did not use this question, so I do not add the list)

24. Duid hieronder telkens aan wat voor jou van toepassing is:

Ik kijk vaker naar Engelstalige televisie dan naar Nederlandstalige Ik kijk vaker naar Nederlandstalige televisie dan naar Engelstalige Ik kijk enkel naar Nederlandstalige programma’s/films Ik kijk enkel naar Engelstalige programma’s/films

De reden hiervoor is:

______

Ik heb een voorkeur voor Engelstalige televisieprogramma’s/films Ik heb een voorkeur voor Nederlandstalige televisieprogramma’s/films

110

Ik heb geen voorkeur

Ik kijk liever naar gedubde (voice-over) dan naar Engelstalige televisieprogramma’s/films Ik kijk liever naar ondertitelde dan naar gedubde Engelstalige televisieprogramma’s/films

De reden voor mijn voorkeur is:

______

25. Welke zijn je favoriete posten op televisie?

Onderlijn in onderstaande lijst de zenders die je vaak bekijkt. Je mag er zelf ook toevoegen.

(I did not use this question in my research, so I did not add the list)

III. ENGELSTALIGE & NEDERLANDSTALIGE FILMS

26. Kijk je graag naar Engelstalige films? JA / NEEN

Als je kan kiezen, zet je dan de ondertiteling op? JA / NEEN

Zo ja: zet je dan Nederlandse of Engelse ondertiteling op?

Kruis aan wat voor jou van toepassing is:

Ik kies voor Nederlandse ondertiteling Ik kies voor Engelse ondertiteling

111

De reden hiervoor is:

______

Of kijk je liever naar een gedubde versie van een Engelstalige film?

JA / NEEN

Waarom?

______

27. Kijk je soms naar Disneyfilms? JA / NEEN

Zo ja, kijk je de film dan in het Nederlands of in het Engels?

Kruis aan wat voor jou van toepassing is:

Ik kijk de film in het Nederlands (= de gedubde versie) Ik kijk de film in het Engels met ondertitels (= de originele versie)

De reden hiervoor is:

______

28. Als je in de cinema gaat kijken naar een film die oorspronkelijk Engels is (vb. De films over Harry Potter), kies je dan voor de Nederlandstalige of de Engelstalige versie van die film?

Zet een kruisje bij wat voor jou van toepassing is:

Ik kies voor de Nederlandstalige versie

112

Ik kies voor de Engelstalige versie

Waarom? ______

IV. COMPUTER

29. Hoeveel uur per dag werk/speel je op je computer?

Kruis aan wat voor jou van toepassing is:

Tot 30 minuten per dag 30 minuten tot 1 uur per dag 1 u - 1 u 30 minuten per dag 1 u 30 minuten - 2 u per dag 2 u - 2 u 30 minuten per dag 2 u 30 minuten - 3 u per dag Meer dan 3 u per dag

30. Hoeveel dagen per week werk/speel je op je computer?

Kruis aan wat voor jou van toepassing is:

Nooit 1 dag per week 2 dagen per week 3 dagen per week 4 dagen per week 5 dagen per week 6 dagen per week Alle dagen van de week

113

31.Werk je dan op je computer, of gebruik je je computer enkel voor je plezier?

Kruis aan wat voor jou van toepassing is:

Werk Ontspanning Allebei

Wat doe je dan precies (specificeer je antwoord)?

A. Werk: ______

B. Ontspanning: ______

32.

A. Gebruik je Engelstalige computerprogramma’s op je computer (vb. spelletjes, Windows, Office)? JA / NEEN Zo ja: leg uit!

______

B. Heb je een specifieke reden om Engelse computerprogramma’s te gebruiken?

JA / NEEN Zo ja: leg uit!

______

V. MUZIEK & LIEDJESTEKSTEN

33. Luister je meer naar Engelstalige muziek of naar Nederlandstalige muziek?

Zet een kruisje bij wat voor jou van toepassing is:

114

Ik luister meer naar Nederlandstalige muziek Ik luister meer naar Engelstalige muziek

Is hier een reden voor? Leg uit.

______

34. Begrijp je doorgaans de liedjesteksten van de Engelstalige liedjes waar je naar luistert?

JA / NEEN

* Zo ja: geef eens een voorbeeld.

* Zo neen: zoek je de tekst dan op? Geef uitleg.

______

115

11.2 Vocabulary test (Dutch)

Thesisonderzoek Siona Houthuys

Master Taal- en Letterkunde: Engels – Italiaans

Academiejaar 2010-2011

Productive vocabulary of English

Naam:______

Klas: ______

Geboortedatum: ____ / ____ / ______

1. Benoem de dieren in het Engels

116

2. Voeding en keukengerei: benoem in het Engels

3. Familie: vertaal naar het Engels

Mama Papa Opa Oma Tante Nonkel Broer Zus

4. Kleuren: vertaal naar het Engels

Rood Blauw Geel Groen Paars

117

5. Benoem de getallen in het Engels

1 2 3 4 5 10 20 21 100

6. Vertaal de volgende zinnetjes naar het Engels

 Mijn naam is Julie. ______ Ik hou van brood. ______ Mijn hond is mooi. ______ Mijn kamer is groot. ______

7. Benoem in het Engels

Man Televisie Kind Spiegel Vrouw Rivier Computer Dier Telefoon Hart

8. Sport: vertaal naar het Engels

Tennis Voetbal Zwemmen Basketbal

9. Vertaal naar het Engels

Liefde Dood

118

Verdriet Gevaar

10. De dagen van de week: vertaal

Maandag Dinsdag Woensdag Donderdag Vrijdag Zaterdag Zondag

11. Adjectieven en werkwoorden

Klein Denken Droevig Voelen Lelijk Eten Koud Praten Warm Weten

12. Vul de volgende zinnetjes in. Kies uit: trees, baby, ball, milk, sports

 My daughter is pregnant (zwanger). She is having a ______ A cow produces______ I play tennis and soccer, and I often go swimming. I love ______

 To play soccer, you need a ______ In the woods (het bos), there are a lot of ______

119