UNIVERSITÉ DE THE UNIVERSITY OF

MAROUA MAROUA
-------------- --------------
ÉCOLE NORMALE HIGHER TEACHERS’
SUPÉRIEURE TRAINING COLLEGE
------------ ------------
DÉPARTEMENT DE DEPARTMENT OF
LETTRES BILINGUES BILINGUAL LETTERS

ACCULTURATION AND THE ACQUISITION OF

SPOKEN FRENCH BY ANGLOPHONE INTERNALLY
DISPLACED STUDENTS IN MBOUDA

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the
Post-Graduate Teacher’s Diploma (DIPES II) in Bilingual Letters

By

Claude Lionel MVONDO EDZOA

B.A in Bilingual Letters, UMa

Natacha NGUEMO MOUAFO

B.A in Bilingual Studies, UYI

SUPERVISOR

Michael ETUGE APUGE

Associate Professor

MAY 2022
ii
 DEDICATION

To our beloved families

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to express our heartfelt gratitude to the following persons for their
invaluable contribution towards the completion of this work.

In the first place, we thank our supervisor, Prof. Michael ETUGE APUGE, for
his selfless involvement in the key stages of this research, in spite of his personal
challenges and other professional engagements. We are especially indebted to him for
his insightful comments and instructions, which enhanced the quality of this work.

Our gratitude equally goes to all the lecturers of the Department of Bilingual
Letters, for equipping us in various ways for the fulfilment of this task. In this regard,
we must signal the precious insights received from Dr Willy NDZOTOM in the
research methodology course.

Special thanks to Mrs Lydia ENANGA IKOME, who helped collect the data
for this research, and without whom this study would have been impossible. The same
goes for Dr Herbert NGOUO, who gave us the software which was used to analyse the
data.

Lastly, we would like to say thanks to all our classmates for their camaraderie
and esprit de corps, and to all those who helped us spiritually, financially or materially.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION................................................................................................................. i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................. iii

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................... x

RESUMÉ......................................................................................................................... x

LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................... xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................... xiv

CHAPTER ONE.............................................................................................................1

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1

1.1. Background...........................................................................................................1

1.2. Statement of the Research Problem...................................................................2

1.3. Research Questions..............................................................................................3

1.4. Hypotheses............................................................................................................ 3

1.5. Aim and Objectives..............................................................................................4

1.6. Relevance.............................................................................................................. 4

1.7. Delimitation.......................................................................................................... 5

iii
 1.8. Key concepts......................................................................................................... 7

1.8.1. Anglophone.................................................................................................... 7

1.8.2. Internally displaced person.......................................................................... 7

1.8.3. Acculturation................................................................................................. 8

1.9. Overview of the study.......................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER TWO..........................................................................................................10

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS........................................................................... 10

2.0. Introduction........................................................................................................10

2.1. Factors of language acquisition........................................................................10

2.1.1. Age: the Critical Period Hypothesis..........................................................10

2.1.2. Exposure: Krashen’s acquisition theories................................................ 13

2.1.2.1. The Natural Order Hypothesis............................................................... 14

2.1.2.2. The Monitor Hypothesis.......................................................................... 15

2.1.2.3. The Input Hypothesis...............................................................................16

2.1.3. Attitudinal factors : The Affective Filter Hypothesis..............................17

2.1.4. Influence of L1: The role of transfer.........................................................18

2.2. Aspects of language acquisition: Aural and oral skills..................................22

2.2.1. Order of acquisition.................................................................................... 22

iv
 2.2.2. The acquisition of syntactic structures..................................................... 24

2.2.3. The acquisition of vocabulary....................................................................24

2.3. Schumann’s acculturation model.....................................................................25

2.3.1. Background.................................................................................................. 25

2.3.2. Factors of acculturation..............................................................................26

2.3.2.1. Social factors............................................................................................. 26

2.3.2.2. Psychological factors................................................................................ 29

2.3.3. Criticism....................................................................................................... 31

2.3.4. Relevance......................................................................................................32

2.4. Previous literature on acculturation and language acquisition....................32

2.4.1. Acculturation and L2 oral proficiency......................................................33

2.4.2. Acculturation and L2 pragmatic competence..........................................33

2.4.3. Social distance and L2 acquisition.............................................................34

2.5. Conclusion of the chapter................................................................................. 35

CHAPTER THREE..................................................................................................... 36

METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................36

3.0. Introduction........................................................................................................36

3.1. Design.................................................................................................................. 36

v
 3.2. Sample population............................................................................................. 38

3.3. Data collection instrument................................................................................38

3.3.1. Questionnaire...............................................................................................39

3.3.1.1. Structure....................................................................................................39

3.3.1.2. Justification............................................................................................... 40

3.3.2. Self-assessment checklist............................................................................ 40

3.3.2.1. Description................................................................................................ 40

3.3.2.2. Justification............................................................................................... 42

3.4. Collection procedure......................................................................................... 42

3.5. Analysis procedure............................................................................................ 42

3.6. Difficulties encountered.....................................................................................43

3.7. Conclusion of the chapter................................................................................. 43

CHAPTER FOUR........................................................................................................ 44

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS.............................................................44

4.0. Introduction........................................................................................................44

4.1. Background data................................................................................................44

4.1.1. Age.................................................................................................................44

4.1.2. Place of residence before the crisis............................................................ 45

vi
 4.1.3. Education before the crisis......................................................................... 46

4.1.3.1. Education level before displacement......................................................46

4.1.4. Exposure to French before the crisis.........................................................47

4.1.5. Current place of residence..........................................................................49

4.1.6. Summary of background data................................................................... 51

4.2. Social distance variables....................................................................................51

4.2.1. Size and cohesiveness.................................................................................. 51

4.2.1.1. Size............................................................................................................. 52

4.2.1.2. Cohesiveness..............................................................................................52

4.2.2. Integration pattern...................................................................................... 54

4.2.3. Enclosure...................................................................................................... 56

4.2.4. Cultural congruence....................................................................................59

4.2.5. Length of residence..................................................................................... 62

4.2.5.1. Length of stay............................................................................................63

4.2.5.2. Intended length of residence................................................................... 63

4.2.6. Summary of findings on social distance....................................................67

4.3. Psychological distance variables...................................................................... 67

4.3.1. Language shock........................................................................................... 67

vii
 4.3.2. Culture shock............................................................................................... 69

4.3.3. Motivation.................................................................................................... 71

4.3.4. Summary of findings on psychological distance...................................... 75

4.4. Self-rated level of french and acculturation................................................... 75

4.4.1. Self-rated level of French before the crisis............................................... 75

4.4.2. Self-rated level of French now................................................................... 76

4.4.3. Level as per the self-rating questionnaire................................................ 78

4.5. Conclusion of the chapter................................................................................ 81

CHAPTER FIVE..........................................................................................................82

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS AND GENERAL CONCLUSION............... 82

5.0. Introduction........................................................................................................82

5.1. Discussion of the findings..................................................................................82

5.1.1. The importance of choice in social acculturation.................................... 82

5.1.2. The entrenchment of negative stereotypes between Anglophones and

Francophones in Cameroon................................................................................. 83

5.1.3. The importance of affective factors in language acquisition..................83

5.2. General conclusion.............................................................................................84

5.2.1. Summary of the findings................................................................................84

5.2.2. Verification of hypotheses..............................................................................84

viii
 5.2.3. Suggestions.......................................................................................................86

5.2.4. To language educators................................................................................ 86

5.2.5. To local authorities......................................................................................87

5.3. Recommendations for further research.......................................................... 87

REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 89

APPENDIX................................................................................................................... 98

ix
 ABSTRACT

This study examines the social and psychological aspects of the acculturation
experience of Anglophone internally displaced students living in Mbouda, West Region of
Cameroon, and relates them to their acquisition of spoken French, in accordance with the
predictions of Schumann’s Acculturation Model. Its main assumption is that IDPs enjoy
social and psychological proximity with the target group, and that this has a positive impact
on their acquisition of French. The sample consists of 38 adolescents from the North-West
and South-West regions of Cameroon, who have been attending school in Mbouda for an
average time of three and a half years. The analysis of the data collected via a questionnaire
and a self-assessment checklist yields nuanced results in the two sets of variables. As a matter
of fact, socially, the respondents are found to be well integrated in spatial and relational
variables, but much less so in attitudinal variables. Psychologically, they are well disposed
towards the French language, but not towards the local population. As for their spoken
French, it is found to have made insignificant progress over their time of stay. This is
attributed to their negative perception of the target language group, which favours a high
affective filter, hampering acquisition. Ultimately, this result leads to the conclusion that the
displaced students’ apparent integration is the product of a survival strategy, pending an
anticipated return to their regions of origin.

Keywords: acculturation; second language acquisition; forced displacement; Anglophone

Crisis.

RESUMÉ

La présente étude examine les aspects socio-psychologiques du phénomène

d’acculturation, tel qu’expérimenté par les élèves anglophones déplacés internes vivant à
Mbouda, et les met en rapport avec l’acquisition du français parlé par ces derniers, d’après les
prédictions de la Théorie de l’acculturation de Schumann. Elle s’appuie sur l’hypothèse selon
laquelle les déplacés internes sont socialement et psychologiquement proches du groupe hôte,
ce qui a un impact positif sur leur acquisition du français. L’échantillon est composé de 38
adolescents en provenance des régions du Nord-Ouest et du Sud-Ouest, scolarisés à Mbouda
depuis, en moyenne, trois ans et demi. L’analyse des données collectées à l’aide d’un
questionnaire et d’une check-list auto-évaluative révèle des résultats nuancés. En effet, sur le
plan social, il apparaît que les participants sont bien intégrés en ce qui concerne les variables
spatiales et relationnelles, mais beaucoup moins pour ce qui est des variables attitudinales.
Sur le plan psychologique, ils ont une perception positive de la langue française, mais non de
la population locale. S’agissant des aptitudes des participants en français parlé, on observe
qu’elles ont peu progressé pendant le temps de leur séjour à Mbouda. Ce résultat est attribué
à leur perception négative du groupe hôte, qui a favorisé l’élévation de leur filtre affectif et
leur acquisition. En fin de compte, on parvient à la conclusion selon laquelle l’intégration
apparente des élèves déplacés internes anglophones fait partie d’une stratégie de survie, en
attendant un retour probable dans leurs régions d’origine.

Mots-clés : acculturation; acquisition de la langue seconde; migration forcée; crise

anglophone.

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of Mbouda in the West Region of Cameroon (MapBox, 2022)...... 6

Figure 2: Average order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes for English

(Krashen, 1982)..............................................................................................................14

Figure 3: Stages of second language acquisition...........................................................23

Figure 4: Self-rated level of French before and after displacement..............................77

Figure 5: Self-rated oral proficiency level.....................................................................80

xi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 : Categories of language skills (Baker, 2001).................................................. 22

Table 2 : Stages of the acquisition of syntax (Pienemann, 1998)................................. 24

Table 3 : Potential contributions of qualitative and quantitative approaches to a mixed

methods study by phase (Creamer, 2018)......................................................................37

Table 4 : CEFR Proficiency levels (Adapted from CEFR, 2001).................................41

Table 5 : Number of statements per proficiency level...................................................41

Table 6 : Age of respondents......................................................................................... 44

Table 7 : Region of residence before the crisis..............................................................45

Table 8 : Education level before displacement..............................................................46

Table 9 : Exposure to French before the crisis.............................................................. 47

Table 10 : Place of exposure to French..........................................................................48

Table 11 : Holidays in a French-speaking area............................................................. 48

Table 12 : Number of holidays in a French-speaking area............................................49

Table 13 : Current place of residence of respondents (Neigbourhood)........................ 49

Table 14 : Size of second-language learning group...................................................... 52

Table 15 : Participation in second-language learning group activities......................... 53

Table 16 : Participation in second-language learning group activities (Frequency).... 53

xii
Table 17 : Involvement with out-group......................................................................... 54

Table 18 : Company at school........................................................................................55

Table 19 : Company out of school................................................................................. 55

Table 20 : Interpenetration in the neighbourhood......................................................... 57

Table 21 : Attendance at religious services................................................................... 58

Table 22 : Percentage of language use during religious services..................................58

Table 23 : Distance between source and target cultures................................................60

Table 24 : Elements of difference between 2LL culture and target language culture.. 61

Table 25 : Length of residence.......................................................................................63

Table 26 : Intended length of residence.........................................................................64

Table 27 : Reasons for intended stay in Mbouda.......................................................... 64

Table 28 : Reasons for intended departure from Mbouda after the crisis.....................65

Table 29 : Opinion on the difficulty of French..............................................................68

Table 30 : Self-confidence when speaking French........................................................69

Table 31 : Experience living in Mbouda........................................................................70

Table 32 : Perceived out-group attitude.........................................................................71

Table 33 : Motivation to learn French........................................................................... 72

Table 34 : Endeavour to learn French............................................................................72

xiii
Table 35 : Reasons for learning French......................................................................... 73

Table 36 : Types of motivation...................................................................................... 74

Table 37 : Self-rated level of French before the crisis.................................................. 76

Table 38 : Self-rated level of French now..................................................................... 77

Table 39 : Self-rated oral proficiency level................................................................... 78

xiv
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2LL: Second-language learning

CALD: Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

COED: Concise Oxford English Dictionary

CPH: Critical Period Hypothesis

IDP: Internally Displaced Person

L1: First Language

L2: Second Language

OL2: Second Official Language

SLA: Second Language Acquisition

TL: Target Language

xv
 CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

This work probes the relationship between acculturation and the acquisition of
spoken French by Anglophone internally displaced students living in the town of
Mbouda, Bamboutos Division, West Region of Cameroon. Specifically, it examines
the social and psychological aspects of their integration experience, and seeks to
ascertain a connection with their rate of acquisition of spoken French, against the
backdrop of an armed conflict that has some of its roots in the linguistic and cultural
divide that exists between Anglophones and Francophones in Cameroon. The current
introductory chapter lays the groundwork for the study, providing the necessary
background (1.1.), but also stating the problem (1.2.), the questions (1.3.), the
hypotheses (1.4.), the aim and objectives (1.5.) of this research. The latter sections of
the chapter discuss the relevance (1.6.) and delimitation (1.7.) of the study, and
provide a clarification of the key terms (1.8.) of the topic.

1.1. Background

Decades of frustration, fuelled by a sense of marginalisation and fears of

assimilation by the dominant French-speaking majority of the country, ultimately
found a violent expression in the English-speaking regions of Cameroon, following
the repression of a lawyers’ protest in Bamenda in 2016. This incident (and
subsequent others) sparked a revival of the until then relatively dormant Southern
Cameroonian nationalism among the Anglophones, leading to a rapid radicalisation
that culminated in the formation of armed separatist militias. By mid-2017, the
situation had escalated to regular skirmishes between government forces and separatist
groups, before the Cameroonian government finally declared war on the separatists,
officially starting what has come to be known as the Anglophone Crisis or the
Cameroonian Civil War (Ekah, 2019; Manga Edimo, 2021).

1
 According to International Crisis Group (2022), the conflict has claimed the lives
of about 6,000 people and caused the destruction of over 250 villages. Besides, the
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR, 2019) reports that over
400,000 people have been displaced, the greater part of them within the country. And
while most IDPs remain in the two English-speaking regions (North-West and South-
West), a sizeable number of them have moved to Francophone regions, mainly the
Littoral and West Regions – about 80,000 people in these two regions alone,
according to UNHCR figures.

Among these IDPs are many school-age children and adolescents who have
suffered the trauma of war – often witnessing scenes of extreme violence – and have
been further subjected to the stress of an oft-perilous flight to safety. This study
examines their response to the challenge of adaptation to a new living environment,
especially as far as the acquisition of French is concerned.

1.2. Statement of the Research Problem

Young Anglophone IDPs who migrate to Francophone regions and, especially, to

the West Region, find themselves in a different environment, characterised by a
different language and, often, culture1. In order to operate in this new setting, one of
their primary needs is to acquire the French language, which is the lingua franca of
the area. Research has established that various factors – linguistic and extra-linguistic
– play in the acquisition of a second language, and are thus responsible for the
variation observed in the acquisition rate of different individuals. One of them is
acculturation, theorised by Schumann in his Acculturation Model (1978), and defined
as “the social and psychological integration of the learner with the target language (TL)

1
While the North-West and West Regions belong to the same cultural continuum (Grassfields/Bamileke), this is
not the case with the South-West Region, which is part of the Coastal/Sawa continuum. This distinction
however becomes insignificant if we consider the fact that there is an Anglophone cultural identity, which is
based on a set of shared values and practices inherited from the British colonial rule of the Southern Cameroons
Trust Territory.

2
group” (Schumann, 1986, p. 379) . In the context of a forced migration with dramatic
socio-economic and psychological consequences, it is interesting to look into the
social and psychological acculturation experiences of internally displaced students and
find out how these influence their acquisition of spoken French.

1.3. Research Questions

This research is guided by three main questions, which are based on the two sets
of variables developed by Schumann’s Acculturation Model, namely social and
psychological variables:

RQ1. In terms of social distance, what is the acculturation experience of

Anglophone internally displaced students living in Mbouda?

RQ2. In terms of psychological distance, what is their acculturation experience?

RQ3. How do these experiences influence their acquisition of spoken French?

1.4. Hypotheses

As tentative answers to the research questions, we formulate the following

hypotheses:

- RH1: Anglophone internally displaced students enjoy social proximity with the
target language group;
- RH2: Anglophone internally displaced students enjoy psychological proximity
with the target language and the target language group;
- RH3: The acquisition of spoken French by Anglophone internally displaced
students is positively influenced by their acculturation experiences.

3
 1.5. Aim and Objectives

The purpose of this study is to find out how the social and psychological
acculturation experiences of Anglophone internally displaced students influence their
acquisition of spoken French. Specifically, it will seek to fulfil the following
objectives:

1) To describe the social integration experiences of Anglophone internally-

displaced students within the town of Mbouda ;
2) To document the attitudes of Anglophone internally-displaced students towards
the French language and towards the local population of Mbouda;
3) To characterise the relationship between the social and psychological
integration experiences of these students and their level of attainment in spoken
French.

1.6. Relevance

This research is intended as a contribution to stakeholders in various domains,

including linguistic theory, language education and community management.

1.6.1. Relevance to linguistic theory

Schumman’s Acculturation Model was initially formulated in the context of

economic immigration into the United States (Ushioda, 1993). This study will apply
the theory to a different context – forced displacement, thus producing data likely to
enrich the discussion on its validity.

1.6.2. Relevance to language education

This study draws attention to the social and psychological aspects of language
education, which often appear to be secondary issues in classroom practices in
Cameroon. It aims to raise language teachers’ awareness of the social and

4
psychological challenges faced by internally displaced students, as these could
impinge on their immersion experience and potentially interfere with the
teaching/learning process. In this way, it could help teachers to make informed
choices as to their classroom practices, in order to take into account the exceptional
conditions brought about by armed conflicts or any other traumatic situation.

1.6.3. Relevance to community management

This research will provide local authorities with data on the attitudes of IDPs
towards their communities. This data could help determine future actions aimed at
facilitating the integration of this group into their target communities.

1.7. Delimitation

Theoretically, this work belongs in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research,

in its social and psychological aspects. It therefore straddles sociolinguistics and
psycholinguistics.

On the geographical level, this research is set in the West Region of Cameroon,
particularly in the town of Mbouda, the administrative centre of the Bamboutos
Division, which borders the North-West and the South-West Regions (cf. Fig 1).
Mbouda is the nearest major town to the North-West and South-West Regions,
situated only 50 kilometres away from Bamenda, the North-West regional capital. It is
a medium-sized municipality of 140, 000 inhabitants (as of 2011), mainly populated
by the native Nda’a tribe, which is part of the Bamileke ethnic group. Minorities
include other Bamileke populations like the Ngombale, the Ngiemba, and the
Mengaka, but also settlers like the Bororo and Hausa, and economic migrants from
neighbouring regions (Commune de Mbouda, 2011).

The dominant ethnic language in the area is Ngieemboon (ISO 639-3), a bantoid
language which belongs to the Wide Grassfields group, along with Ngemba, one of
the main ethnic languages spoken in Bamenda (Eberhard, Simons, & Fennig, 2022) .
5
However, the language in use in public offices and schools, and between the various
communities of different origin, is French.

Culturally, the Nda’a people share similarities with the Tikar and Ngemba peoples
in the North-West Region. This is not the case with the majority of ethnic groups
found in the South-West Region.

Figure 1: Location of Mbouda in the West Region of Cameroon (MapBox, 2022)

6
 1.8. Key concepts

This section is concerned with clarifying the terms ‘Anglophone’, ‘internally

displaced person’ and ‘acculturation’.

1.8.1. Anglophone

Dictionary definitions of the term ‘Anglophone’ are all very similar, from
simple ones (“an English-speaking person”, COED, 2004) to more elaborate
formulations (“a person who speaks English, especially in countries where other
languages are also spoken”, CALD, 2013). More or less, they all rest on the
etymology of the word, which is formed from the Latin root ‘anglus’ (‘English’) and
the Greek suffix ‘phone’ (‘sound’ or ‘voice’). An Anglophone is therefore, basically,
someone who speaks English. However, in Cameroon, the word has acquired ethno-
cultural undertones, as a result of the dual colonisation of the land by France and
Britain, and the subsequent difficult cohabitation – within the independent, reunified
State – of cultures inherited from the colonial masters. In Cameroon, an Anglophone
is first and foremost a person whose origins can be traced back to the North-West and
South-West Regions (the part of Cameroon that was under British rule, formerly
known as British Southern Cameroons Trust Territory and West Cameroon), whether
or not they actually speak English. And in fact, instead of English, many Anglophones
speak an ethnic language and/or Cameroon Pidgin English, and a growing number of
them are linguistic Francophones. In this study, the term ‘Anglophone’ will be used to
refer to individuals who combine the two meanings of the word, i.e. West Cameroon
ancestry and ability to speak English.

1.8.2. Internally displaced person

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs,

(OCHA, 2004, p.1) identifies an Internally Displaced Person as a person “who [has]
been forced or obliged to flee from their home or place of habitual residence, in

7
particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflicts, situations of
generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters,
and who has not crossed an internationally recognized State border”.

1.8.3. Acculturation

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary (COED, 2004) describes acculturation

as ‘assimilation’ to a different culture. This definition implies that the person who
acculturates becomes part of the target group or is absorbed by it, losing their original
culture and conforming to the target culture, as per the meanings of the verb ‘to
assimilate’ given by the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (CALD, 2013).

TheSage’s English Dictionary and Thesaurus (2005) presents a more nuanced

view of the concept, as it considers acculturation to be “the adoption of the behaviour
patterns of the surrounding community”. As a matter of fact, adopting the behaviour
patterns of one’s new living environment does not always mean abandonment of
original ones, as each behaviour pattern could be suited to a specific context.

Scholarly definitions of acculturation are more refined, as they take into

account different layers of complexity. For example, drawing from Berry and Sam
(1997) and Maxwell (1998), Ahamefule (2019, pp. 22-23) describes it as “the cultural
changes that occur when individuals from one cultural context adapt to a new context
as a result of migration, colonization, or other forms of intercultural encounter”, but
also, further on, as “the complex process whereby a minority group modifies its social
norms, attitudes, values and behaviours because of continuous exposure to another
cultural system, which is significantly different from their original culture”.

1.9. Overview of the study

This work consists of four chapters (introduction and conclusion excepted)

arranged in the following order:

8
 Theoretical foundations (Chapter 2), which discusses the supporting
theories of the study as well as their relevance to the topic.
 Methodology (Chapter 3), which describes the research process and the
instruments used to collect and analyse the data.
 Data presentation and analysis (Chapter 4), wherein the data is presented
and analysed.
 Discussion of findings and recommendations (Chapter 5), which provides
an interpretation of the findings obtained in the preceding chapter, and
makes suggestions to various stakeholders.

9
 CHAPTER TWO

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

2.0. INTRODUCTION

This chapter grounds our study in theory, drawing from previous literature in the
field of Second Language Acquisition. Emphasis is placed on Schumman’s
Acculturation theory (1978), which serves as the focal framework for data analysis.
Other theoretical proposals are also discussed in relation to the factors of second
language acquisition.

2.1. FACTORS OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

A complex phenomenon, language acquisition cannot be accounted for by any

one factor. Rather, it is a function of several developmental, psychological, social, and
economic factors, among which are age, exposure, motivation, socio-economic status,
and the individual’s first language (for second language acquisition). We discuss each
of these in relation to a major theory that has been formulated in relation to it.

2.1.1. Age: the Critical Period Hypothesis

One of the key questions around the role of age in language acquisition is that
of the existence of an ideal age to acquire a second language. On this point, one of the
most popular (but also controversial) views is the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH),
formulated by Lenneberg (1967) in Biological foundations of language2. The
mainstream CPH proposal holds that, in a linguistically favourable environment – one
in which there is exposure to language – language acquisition is best realised within
an ideal timeframe (the ‘critical period’), after which it will less likely be successful
(that is, it will be almost impossible for the individual to attain ‘native-like’ L2
2
Although the first references to an ideal period for acquiring language were made by Penfield and Roberts (1959), yet it is
widely acknowledged that it is Lenneberg who proposed the first elaborated formulation of the Critical Period Hypothesis.

10
proficiency). In other terms, in acquiring a language, the younger is always the better.
CPH is thus a “causal explanation for the differential success in acquisition of a
second language by younger and older learners” (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1999, p. 162).

CPH ascribes the supposed age-bound difficulty to learn a language to

neurological processes, in particular brain lateralisation – understood as the
completion of cerebral dominance (i.e. the fixation of language functions to a specific
brain hemisphere) – which results in a loss of cerebral plasticity (Krashen, 1973). As a
matter of fact, the human brain is extremely plastic during its early years of
development, enabling neural wiring to form the most advantageous circuits for the
development of a specific capacity or behaviour (Singleton & Lesniewska, 2021) .
With age, however, the brain gradually loses its plasticity. CPH advocates argue that
this loss in cerebral plasticity, which is a consequence of the maturation of the brain,
has an adverse effect on the human capacity to acquire language on various levels.

Traditionally, the areas thought to be affected by lateralisation are mainly

syntax and phonology. In this direction, several studies have shown age to be a strong
predictor of the degree of acquisition of an L2 accent, with young starters being more
likely to acquire a foreign accent than older ones (Asher & Garcia, 1969; Oyama,
1976) . Lenneberg himself contends that brain lateralisation is responsible for the fact
that adult learners can hardly get rid of their accent when learning a new language (as
cited by Krashen, 1973). Concerning syntax, CPH theorists generally point to feral
children as a patent illustration of the ‘younger=better’ view. The most emblematic of
these children is Genie, an American girl brought to public notice at the age of 13 in
1970 (Fromkin, Krashen, Curtiss, Rigler, & Rigler, 1974). As a matter of fact, despite
efforts to educate her, Genie was found incapable of making full sentences, and could
only communicate with telegraphic utterances.

In congruence with the above observations, the critical period is usually

situated between infancy and adolescence, although its lower and upper limits vary

11
from one CPH theorist to another. For example, Lenneberg proposes age two as the
starting point and puberty as the end point of the critical period, while Penfield places
the upper limit at the age of nine (Krashen, 1973; Singleton, 2007) . This diversity of
formulations, instead of being a sign of the vitality of the field, happens to be one of
the weak points of CPH.

As a matter of fact, as pointed out by Bialystok & Hakuta (1999) but also by
Singleton (2007), CPH raises a number of problems which have yet to be resolved.
The first is that of the standard of correctness the learner is supposed to attain. Indeed,
it is difficult to adopt a benchmark for ‘native-like’ proficiency, given the variety in
performance even among native speakers of a language (especially as concerns the
phonological aspect).

The second is that of scope and generalisability. On this point, Bialystok &
Hakuta (1999) consider that the evidence brought forward to support the existence of
a critical period is insufficient to establish the hypothesis. Moreover, contrary
evidence has been uncovered by various researchers (cf. Singleton, 1995;
Lasagabaster and Doiz, 2003; Thompson and Gaddes 2005), which points to the fact
that older beginners usually catch up with younger beginners in formal instructional
contexts, while younger beginners catch up with older beginners in naturalistic
contexts. This apparent paradox – called the ‘catch-up conundrum’ (Singleton, 1995)
– tends to show that acquisition is not determined by age, but by a conjunction of
factors.

Finally, Bialystok & Hakuta (1999) insist that, as concerns brain lateralisation,
correlation should not be mistaken for causation. In other words, although brain
lateralisation as a phenomenon has been established, this does not necessarily mean
that it actually causes any loss in the capacity to learn a language:

12
 Again, however, correlation is not causality. Researchers remind us that neural
organization can reflect different kinds of experiences without being abnormal or
supporting inferior performance (Elbert, Pantev, Wienbruch, Rockstroh, & Taub,
1995; Locke, 1993; Merzenich et al., 1984). Special experiences, in other words,
may influence neural organization without affecting performance. (p.177)

In fine, the most commonly accepted view about the role of age in second
language acquisition is that, while early L2 exposure does raise the chances of
eventually attaining a high proficiency level in that language, yet it is not impossible
for adults to attain high levels of command in L2 (Singleton, 1995) . To Krashen
(1982:43), however, “age is not in itself a predictor of second language rate or
attainment; […] here too everything reduces down to the quantity of comprehensible
input and the level of the affective filter.”

2.1.2. Exposure: Krashen’s acquisition theories

Traditionally, the importance of exposure in second language acquisition is not

a matter for debate in the literature. Controversy mostly arises around the nature of
exposure and its specific role in the process of language acquisition. On the question,
the most influential proposals are the Natural Order hypothesis, the Monitor
hypothesis, and the Input hypothesis, all presented by Stephen Krashen in Principles
and Practice in Second Language Acquisition (1982). These hypotheses are based on
the distinction between acquisition and learning, which Krashen considers
fundamental for understanding how second language acquisition takes place. He
defines acquisition as a subconscious process, “similar, if not identical, to the way
children develop ability in their first language”, and learning as ‘explicit learning’,
“conscious knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them,
and being able to talk about them” (p.10). These two processes (systems) coexist in
the adult, and have a different impact on the acquisition of a second language.
Krashen’s hypotheses submit an explanation of the interplay between them.

13
 2.1.2.1. The Natural Order hypothesis

The Natural Order hypothesis suggests that, for both children and adults, and
for both first and second language ‘acquirers’, the acquisition of grammatical
structures takes place in a predictable order (Krashen, 1982) . Krashen grounds this
proposition in the findings of several studies – by Brown (1963), Dulay and Burt
(1974, 1975), Kessler and Idar (1977), Fabris (1978), and Makino (1980), among
others – which discovered a relatively fixed order in the acquisition of certain
morphemes, like the –ing and the –s inflectional morphemes (as concerns the English
language) by children and adults. The order of acquisition is, however, not the same
for first and second language acquirers, although there are similarities. Krashen
proposes Figure 2 as a synthesis of the various findings.

Figure 2: Average order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes for English (Krashen, 1982)

14
 2.1.2.2. The Monitor hypothesis

The Monitor hypothesis assigns two different roles to acquisition and learning in
second language performance. It posits that acquisition is responsible for the
production of utterances (and thus, for fluency), while learning only acts as a monitor,
to bring correction before, while or after the utterance has been produced:

Normally, acquisition "initiates" our utterances in a second language and is

responsible for our fluency. Learning has only one function, and that is as a
Monitor, or editor. Learning comes into play only to make changes in the form of
our utterance, after is has been "produced" by the acquired system. This can
happen before we speak or write, or after (self-correction). (Krashen, 1982, p. 15)

The implication of this proposal is that the informal, unconscious absorption of

language (i.e. acquisition) plays a greater role in second language production than the
formal, conscious learning of rules. Moreover, conscious rules can only be useful
when at least three conditions are met (Krashen, 1982):

 Time: the individual must have sufficient time to think about the rules;
 Focus on form: the individual must be thinking on how best to construct his
utterance;
 Knowledge of the rule: the individual must know the rule, which can be
very complex.

When these conditions are not simultaneously met, as often in real-time

communication, the result can be a clipped conversation, marked by much hesitation
(when speaking) and inattention (when listening) on the part of the second language
performer. This typically happens with ‘monitor over-users’, who are overly
conscious of their speech and are constantly checking for errors, self-correcting, and
taking time to frame their utterances. According to Krashen, their reliance on the
learned system could be due to the type of exposure received (e.g. teaching via the
grammar-translation method) or, simply, to their personality. On the contrary,
‘monitor under-users’ rely entirely on the acquired system, and would rather not use

15
their conscious knowledge of rules, when it is present. They pay little attention to
errors and only use their intuition to decide whether an utterance sounds ‘right’ or
‘wrong’. Krashen considers that the ‘Optimal monitor user’ is one who uses the
monitor sparingly, only when it is appropriate (e.g. when writing) and may not disrupt
the communication process.

2.1.2.3. The Input hypothesis

As a theory of acquisition (and not learning), the Input hypothesis states that
we acquire “by understanding language that contains structure that is a little beyond
our current level of competence (i + 1)” (Krashen, 1982, p.20), not by practising
structures over and over. Such new input is made comprehensible with the help of
context or extra-linguistic information like gestures, facial expressions, images, etc.
Thus, to be useful to the acquirer, all new input must contain a structure that is i + 1
above what they already possess, while at the same time being comprehensible.
However, as Krashen stresses, it is not necessary for the new input to contain only i +
1 (that is, to be fine-tuned to teach a specific structure), but merely to be
comprehensible, because “if the acquirer understands the input, and there is enough of
it, i + 1 will automatically be provided” (Krashen, 1982, p.20). In accordance with the
Monitor hypothesis, the last proposition of the Input hypothesis is that fluency cannot
be taught, but rather emerges on its own, with time.

Krashen draws evidence for the Input hypothesis from findings in both first and
second language acquisition. Referring to first language acquisition, he points to
‘caretaker speech’ – that is, the tailored language caretakers habitually use with little
children – as an example of comprehensible input that facilitates the acquisition of
language. He points out that this form of language is ‘rough-tuned’ to be understood
by the child, without being ‘fine-tuned’ to teach a particular structure. In other words,
it contains the i + 1 that the child needs to progress, without being deliberately framed

16
to that effect. In this way, the child acquires i + 1 as he understands the input: Krashen
argues that this reflects the fundamental proposition of the Input hypothesis.

As far as L2 acquisition is concerned, Krashen cites the silent period of

language acquisition. It is the initial stage of acquisition, during which the acquirer,
who cannot yet produce utterances in L2, simply ‘takes in’ language. Later on, during
the stage of early production, he starts producing short and often incorrect utterances,
surging up spontaneously from the accumulated input. This agrees with the last part of
the input hypothesis, i.e. fluency cannot be taught, but rather emerges on its own, with
time.

The main pedagogical implication of the Input hypothesis is that, when the goal
is acquisition, methods that emphasise natural, communicative, and roughly-tuned
input (Total Physical Response, Natural Approach) should be preferred to those that
centre on specific structures (Grammar-Translation, Audio-lingual).

2.1.3. Attitudinal factors : The affective filter hypothesis

This theory was proposed to be the counterpart of the Input hypothesis. As a

matter of fact, in Krashen’s view, acquisition is dependent on two factors:
comprehensible input and a low affective filter. Drawing from an idea initially
developed by Dulay and Burt (1977), Krashen (1982) formulated his hypothesis in the
following terms:

The Affective Filter hypothesis captures the relationship between affective

variables and the process of second language acquisition by positing that
acquirers vary with respect to the strength or level of their Affective Filters. Those
whose attitudes are not optimal for second language acquisition will not only tend
to seek less input, but they will also have a high or strong Affective Filter--even if
they understand the message, the input will not reach the part of the brain
responsible for language acquisition, or the language acquisition device. Those
with attitudes more conducive to second language acquisition will not only seek
and obtain more input, they will also have a lower or weaker filter. They will be
more open to the input, and it will strike "deeper". (p.31)

17
 In other words, to be effective, the acquisition process must not only involve
comprehensible input, but also a receptive attitude towards L2 on the part of the
acquirer. This, to Krashen, explains output differences between two individuals living
in the same environment and receiving the same kind of input, under normal
circumstances. As earlier stated, the ideal second language acquirer is therefore one
who receives sufficient comprehensible input and whose affective filter is low.

Pedagogically, the affective filter hypothesis calls for teachers to take into
account the psychological aspect of teaching. This means creating a favourable
environment for learning, by designing activities that reduce learning anxiety
(counselling, games, music, etc.).

2.1.4. Influence of L1: The role of transfer

The perception of the role of L1 in L2 acquisition has evolved over time, in line
with the various theoretical shifts that have marked the history of SLA research. In
turn, the influence of the acquirer’s L1 on his acquisition of L2 – called ‘interference’
(Weinreich, 1966), ‘cross-linguistic influence’ (Sharwood Smith, 1982), ‘mother-
tongue influence’ (Corder, 1983) or simply ‘transfer’ – has been viewed as
detrimental, insignificant, and helpful, under the sway of behaviourism, mentalism
and current SLA research, respectively.

The behaviourist perspective – introduced in the study of language as a result

of the works of Edward Thorndike (Animal Intelligence, 1911) and Burrhus F. Skinner
(Verbal Behavior, 1957) – viewed language as a behaviour that could be learned
through interaction with one’s environment. This interaction was said to occur in a
stimulus-response-reinforcement relationship called conditioning. Following the
theories of conditioning (especially operant conditioning), a particular behaviour was
learned when the response to a given stimulus was positively reinforced (or
encouraged). Otherwise, the behaviour was eventually abandoned. Language learning

18
was therefore also viewed as the result of such an interaction. Moreover, children
were said to acquire language via imitation.

In this regard, the use of L1 structures in L2 production, called L1 transfer (or,

at the time, ‘interference’), was considered to be a negative response to a stimulus, a
failed attempt to produce new responses using past learned behaviours (Kerr, 1987). It
was to be negatively reinforced (discouraged), being, as it were, the main source of
errors in L2 learning. In the words of Lado (1957) cited by Kerr (1987, p.1), “We
know from the observation of many cases that the grammatical structure of the native
language tends to be transferred to the foreign language…we have here the major
source of difficulty or ease in learning the foreign language.”

This view of language transfer prospered through the 1950s, favoured by the
dominant theoretical stream of the time, i.e., structural linguistics. As a matter of fact,
structural linguistics considered languages as separate, distinct systems of signs (cf.
Saussure, 1916), which could be close to or distant from one another (on the basis of
similarities and differences between them). This joint-influence of behaviourism and
structuralism on SLA research led to the formulation of the first methodological
framework in SLA, the Contrastive Analysis method (CA) which was based on the
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH – Lado, 1957). According to the Contrastive
Analysis Hypothesis, similarities and differences between languages were the source
of errors in learning a second language, as it was thought that errors which showed a
similarity with attested L1 features were an indication of L1 interference, and that
interference was likelier to occur when L1 and L2 were distinctly different (Dechort,
1983 and Ellis, 1997 mentioned by Baljit Bhela, 1999). Consequently, the Contrastive
Analysis method documented the errors made by L2 learners and compared them to
the structure of their L1, to find similarities which could trace the errors back to L1
influence or interference. Under this framework, negative transfer or interference
came to be the main, if not the only, explanation for L2 learner errors.

19
 However, from the 1960s, transfer research suffered from the theoretical shift
brought about by the emergence of Noam Chomsky’s theories of Universal Grammar
(UG) and Generative Grammar (GG) [Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, 1965].
Universal Grammar advocated that all languages possess the same underlying
structure (called ‘deep structure’), and that differences between them are only
superficial (at the level of the ‘surface structure’), while GG posed that language is not
acquired through a process of habit formation, as held by behaviourists, but that
children possess an innate knowledge about the nature of language. These two
premises seriously attacked the theoretical and methodological foundations of CAH,
and led to its discarding, in favour of emerging mentalist theories of language
acquisition.

Building from Generative Grammar theory, mentalists abandoned the idea that
language acquisition was the result of habit formation through imitation. They
concluded that human beings learn a language not because they go through a
conditioning process, but because they possess an innate predisposition which enables
them to acquire language as a normal, creative growth process (Wilkins, 1972;
Meriläinen, 2010). This predisposition was called Language Acquisition Device (LAD)
and described as a ‘little black box’ which consisted of innate linguistic properties
ranging from the ability to discriminate between speech sounds and other sounds, to
the ability to evaluate one’s developing linguistic system (Chomsky and McNeill in
Wilkins, 1972).

Mentalists also renounced the behaviourist assertion that the greater the
distance between L1 and L2, the likelier interference was to occur. Rather, they
advocated that since all languages were basically the same (according to Universal
Grammar theory), then L2 and L1 were acquired in the same way (L1=L2 hypothesis;
Dulay and Burt, 1974), and therefore that errors made by L2 learners were not due to
L1 influence, but to normal developmental processes (Dulay and Burt in Meriläinen,
2010). The latter claim seemed to remove all ground for transfer studies, and transfer

20
indeed fell into disfavour in SLA for a certain period, as CA was abandoned and
replaced by Error Analysis (Developed by Stephen Pitt Corder in the 1960s). In the
words of Gass (1983, p.116): “Language transfer seemed to be an “embarrassment”
since there was no way of incorporating it within existing models.”

Nevertheless, discarding transfer in SLA left a great number of L2 learner

errors unaccounted for; therefore, some researchers tried to combine behaviouristic
and mentalist views on language acquisition (see for example Corder, 1967,
“Significance of Learner's Errors”). Thus, from the late 1960s, transfer was
reintroduced as one, and no longer the sole, explanation for L2 learner’s errors
(Meriläinen, 2010). In that vein, Selinker (1972) offered to reconsider language
transfer, no longer as a negative variable, but as a learning strategy part of the
learner’s ‘interlanguage’. Interlanguage was defined as a transitional system put in
place by the learner himself, distinct from both L1 and L2, which reflected his level of
command of L2. This new approach gave a fresh impetus to transfer studies, as
several researchers dared to study transfer again.

The current understanding of transfer is a compromise between behaviouristic

and mentalistic views, as illustrated by Ringbom’s (2007) statement:

Today there is widespread agreement that the L1 clearly helps, not obstructs, the
process of learning. To what extent it actually helps depends on many factors,
above all the relationship between the L1 and L2 (a foreign or second language).
If the learner can perceive many cross-linguistic similarities, the process is
facilitated: there is a lot of positive transfer. Learners who have an L1 closely
related to the target language (TL) can thus start out from a high platform at the
beginning of the learning process, since they can make use of easily perceived
formal similarities. (p.3)

Thus, the perception of the role of L1 in L2 has been equilibrated, as the

phenomenon of cross-linguistic influence is no longer considered as negative and
harmful, but positive and helpful to language learning.

21
 2.2. ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: AURAL AND ORAL
SKILLS

Aural and oral skills are those associated with listening and speaking,
respectively. As such, they belong to two different categories of language skills, i.e.
receptive and productive skills (cf. Table 1). Receptive skills refer to the ability to take
in and comprehend language, whereas productive skills, as the name suggests, are
concerned with the production of utterances.

Table 1: Categories of language skills (Baker, 2001)

Oracy Literacy

Receptive skills Listening Reading

Productive skills Speaking Writing

On another level, listening and speaking are opposed to reading and writing,
which are related to literacy (and, thus, to learning), while the former are related to
oracy (and to acquisition). In other words, the acquisition of listening and speaking
does not depend on formal education, contrary to reading and writing.

2.2.1. Order of acquisition

According to Krashen and Terrell (1983, 1988), the fundamental principle of

natural language acquisition is that comprehension precedes production, i.e., aural
skills develop before oral skills. In their definition of the stages of second language
acquisition, the authors remark that spoken fluency emerges only after the individual
has acquired a sufficient amount of competence through input. Before that time, the
acquirer may go through a ‘silent period’ characterised by the predominance of
listening. Krashen (1982) believes that this period helps the learner to develop his
listening competence, thus preparing for social interaction through oral

22
communication. Speaking only comes into play in later stages (as from the stage of
‘Early production’), and develops gradually (cf. Figure 3). However, Saville-Troike
(1988) suggests that, in second language acquisition, the pre-production period could
be skipped or shortened, as L2 acquisition implies that the learner already possesses
some knowledge about his L1, and for this reason might not need to go through the
silent period at all.

Figure 3: Stages of second language acquisition

23
 2.2.2. The acquisition of syntactic structures

Pienemann’s (1998) work has led to the identification of a clear pattern in the
acquisition of syntax, which is shown below:

Table 2: Stages of the acquisition of syntax (Pienemann, 1998)

Stage L2 process Morphology/syntax

6 Main and subordinate Embedded questions :‘I wonder why he sold the
clauses cat’

5 Subject-verb agreement 3rd person –s: this person owns a dog

4 Inversion Yes/no inversion: Has he seen you?

3 Noun phrase agreement Plural: ‘He own many dogs’

Adverb: ‘He sleeps always’

2 Plural possessive pronoun Canonical order (subject-verb-object): ‘He buy

car’

1 Invariant forms Single constituent

2.2.3. The acquisition of vocabulary

Since the acquisition of vocabulary involves learning items rather than systems,
it is more subject to variation. However, “research […] has established that children
tend to acquire frequent, concrete, typical and basic level words faster and earlier than
infrequent, abstract and atypical and superordinate words, and that this phenomenon is
universal and equally applicable to L1(first language) and L2 (second language) users
of English as a Second Language (ESL)” (Shaban Rafi, 2013, p. 722)

24
 2.3. SCHUMANN’S ACCULTURATION MODEL

Schumann’s Acculturation Model (1978) is the theoretical framework of this

research. The following is a presentation of its tenets, preceded by some background
information.

2.3.1. Background

The Acculturation Model is the social and psychological component of the

‘Acculturation/Pidginization Theory’, a social, psychological and psycholinguistic
theory of second language acquisition presented by John Schumann in his seminal
book, The Pidginization Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition (1978)
[Ahamefule, 2019]. It derives from the view that second language acquisition is
simply an aspect of acculturation, understood as “the social and psychological
integration of the learner with the target language (TL) group” (Schumann, 1986, p.
379) . In this line of thought, the Acculturation Model posits that the level of
acquisition of a second language is controlled by the extent to which the learner gets
involved with the culture of the target language group (Krashen, 1982).

Schumann’s pioneer case study, which brought about the theory, involved six
Spanish-speaking immigrants (two children, two adolescents, and two adults) who had
recently arrived in the United States from Latin America. Out of the six, five were
from middle to upper class families, while the other participant was from the working-
class – a 33-year-old Costa Rican man named Alberto (Ushioda, 1993; Larsen-
Freeman & Long, 2014) . Over a period of 10 months, Schumann and his colleagues
monitored the subjects’ untutored acquisition of English, in order to identify
developmental patterns in the acquisition of certain grammatical subsystems (Ushioda,
1993; Ahamefule, 2019) . At the end of the process, it was noticed that only Alberto
remained in the earliest stage of second language acquisition (called ‘pidginisation’ by
Schumann), even though he did not suffer from any apparent cognitive deficit
(Larsen-Freeman & Long, 2014) . Schumann submitted that this was due to the social
25
situation of immigrant workers in America, which he described as highly
unfavourable for learning, and to Alberto’s own lack of enthusiasm to socialise with
the English-speaking group and to learn the English language (Ushioda, 1993) . He
specifically outlined two categories of factors to explain Alberto’s case, namely social
and psychological factors. These were the basis for the Acculturation Model.

2.3.2. Factors of acculturation

Schumann proposes eight social factors and five psychological factors as the
determinants of acculturation into a target culture.

2.3.2.1. Social factors

The social factors of acculturation include: social dominance, integration

pattern, enclosure, cohesiveness, size, congruence, inter-group attitudinal evaluations,
and intended length of residence.

 Social dominance

Social dominance refers to the status of the second language learning (2LL)
group in relation to the target language (TL) group. The Acculturation model states
that the ideal scenario for second language acquisition is when the 2LL group and the
TL group are roughly equal in status. When one of the groups is higher in status than
the other, it is supposed that there will not be sufficient contacts between the two
groups for optimal target language acquisition (Ahamefule, 2019) . Schumann (1986)
illustrates the concept of social dominance and its effects on language acquisition with
the example of the French community in Tunisia during the colonial period. As a
matter of fact, these were potential learners of Arabic, but they never found it useful to
learn it, given the political, cultural, technical and economic dominance of their group.

26
  Integration pattern

This is related to the level of involvement of the second language learner or

2LL group with the target language group. Schumann’s model suggests three patterns
of integration: assimilation, preservation and adaptation.

By assimilation is meant that the 2LL group gives up its lifestyle and values
and adopts those of the TL group. According to Schumann (1986, p. 381), “this
strategy maximises contact between the two groups and enhances acquisition of the
target language”. Assimilation therefore appears to be the optimal strategy for second
language acquisition.

As for preservation, it entails that the 2LL group preserves its lifestyle and
values, and rejects those of the TL group. Consequently, second language acquisition
will be slow or even non-existent because the 2LL group will not be ready to embrace
a culture different from theirs.

In the third case, adaptation (or acculturation), the group will adapt to the
lifestyle and values of the TL group for intergroup exchange, but will preserve its own
lifestyle and values for intra-group purpose. This strategy appears to be the most
appropriate for the 2LL group, given that its members will learn a second language
without rejecting or losing their own identity. However, Ahamefule (2019: 153)
remarks that “the adaptation strategy yields varying differences of group contact and
then varying degrees of acquisition of the target language.”

 Enclosure

“Enclosure refers to the degree to which the 2LL group and the TL group share
the same churches, schools, clubs, recreational facilities, crafts, professions and
trades” (Schumann, 1986, p.231). It is surmised that the learning process will be
facilitated when the two groups share these facilities, and that, in the reverse case,
contact between the two groups will be limited, thereby reducing the opportunities for
27
second language acquisition. In other words, the more the 2LL group and the TL
group share the social institutions mentioned earlier, the more favourable the
conditions will be for language acquisition. It is considered that, when the two groups
share the same social facilities, enclosure is low and consequently supports language
learning.

 Size and cohesiveness

Size has to do with the number of individuals that are part of the 2LL or TL
group, while cohesiveness refers to the degree of solidarity between them. Following
the Acculturation Model, when the 2LL group is large, intra-group contact will be
more frequent than intergroup contact. Similarly, the more cohesive the 2LL is, the
less likely intergroup contact will be (Schumann, 1986) . This means that the smaller
and less cohesive the 2LL group, the more likely the contact with the TL group and
the more favourable the conditions for L2 acquisition (Barjesteh & Vaseghi, 2012).

 Congruence

Congruence speaks of the degree of similarity between the 2LL culture and the
TL culture (Schumann, 1986) . If the cultures of the two groups are similar, language
learning will be facilitated (the more similar the two cultures, the more likely there
will be social contact and thereby language acquisition). But if the two groups have
different cultures, it will impact language learning by reducing the speed of learning.

 Inter-group attitudinal evaluations

This factor is related to “the cultural expectations maintained by the 2LL group
towards the TL group and vice versa” (Schumann, 1976 cited by Ushioda, 1993, p.4).
These include ethnic stereotypes which can determine a positive or negative view of
the other group. The expectation is that, if the 2LL group and the TL group have
positive views about each other, second-language learning will be facilitated.

28
Conversely, if the two groups view each other negatively, social distance will be
amplified, thus reducing the opportunities for language acquisition (Schumann, 1986).

 Intended length of residence

Concerning the 2LL group’s intended length of residence in the target language
area, Schumann (1986, p.382) writes: “If the 2LL group intends to remain for a long
time in the target language area, it is likely to develop more extensive contacts with
the target group. Therefore an intended lengthy residence would tend to promote
second-language learning.”

2.3.2.2. Psychological factors

The psychological factors of acculturation proposed by Schumann are language

shock, culture shock, culture stress, motivation and ego-permeability.

 Language shock

Language shock, i.e. the extent to which second language learners are afraid to
look ridiculous and comic when speaking the TL (Ahamefule, 2019), can constitute a
significant hindrance to acquisition, as it can flag down their eagerness to learn the
language, because of doubts concerning their ability to get meaning across and
understand their interlocutor. Language shock is generally ascribed to “disorientation
caused by learning a new linguistic system” (Zaker, 2016: 82).

 Culture shock

Schumann (1986, p.383) defines cultural shock as “anxiety resulting from the
disorientation encountered upon entering a new culture”. The second language learner
feels disorientated because he is unable to apply, “in the context of the new TL culture,
the problem-solving and coping mechanisms acquired in [his] first culture”
(Ahamefule, 2019, p. 70). This can result in self rejection and loss of moral principles.

29
  Culture stress

Culture stress is viewed as the consequence of a prolonged state of shock due to

disorientation upon entering the target language culture. It could be manifested by

Homesickness, excessive concern for [the learner’s] children's welfare and

education, questions of personal identity and inadequacy, and problems of
identification with or alienation from the target culture, the learner's own
culture, or the organisation by whom he is employed. (Ushioda, 1993: 6)

 Motivation

Motivation deals with the learner’s reasons for attempting to acquire the second
language. In this regard, Gardner and Lambert (1972) cited by Schumann (1986),
identify two types of motivation, namely integrative and instrumental motivation.
Integrative motivation implies that the learner wants to learn the language in order to
behave, meet or speak like L2 native speakers, because he wants to be accepted as a
member of the target community. As for instrumental motivation, it applies to second
language learning for utilitarian purposes, like asking for the price of items at the
market, asking for directions, using public transportation. It is generally thought that
integrative motivation is more conducive for language acquisition than instrumental
motivation (Ushioda, 1993).

 Ego permeability

Ego permeability is the second language learners’ level of openness to the

target language. It is the degree to which the learners perceive their L1 to have flexible
boundaries (Muftah, 2013; Ahamefule, 2019) . A learner with a permeable language
ego will not feel that his native language is threatened by the acquisition of the second
language. Schumann (1986, p.384) believes that “successful SLA may depend on the
learner’s level of disinhibition and thus openness to TL language [sic] input”.

30
 2.3.3. Criticism

Several criticisms have been levelled at the Acculturation Model. The most
important were formulated by Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, 2014), who pointed
out three major weaknesses of the theory.

The first weak point is that Schumann’s model is empirically untestable, as no

reliable and valid measures of psychological and social distance exist. This is also
highlighted by Ahamefule (2019, p. 73) who, drawing from Gardner (1985) and
Saville-Troike (2006), considers that “the concept of acculturation and what it entails
is too complex to be defined operationally and experimentally tested”.

The second is the inconsistency found in the results of studies applying the
Acculturation Model. As a matter of fact, while some studies have established a
correlation between acculturation and second language achievement (e.g. Maple,
1982), Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, 2014) cite Oyama (1976, 1978), Purcell and
Suter (1980), Klein and Dittmar (1979), d'Anglejan and Renaud (1985) and Schmidt
(1981, 1983) as examples of studies which found little to no relationship between
psychological distance and L2 achievement, and Hermann (1980) and Strong (1984)
as studies that found an inverse correlation between motivation and L2 achievement.

The third weakness of the Acculturation Model, according to Larsen-Freeman and

Long, is the impossibility to falsify it. On this last point, the authors argue that:

Schumann provides no indication of the combinations and/or levels of

social and psychological factors he claims predict learning. Is it enough, for
example, for one social distance factor (say, group size) or one
psychological factor (say, ego permeability) to be negative in order for SLA
to be affected? Alternatively, is it necessary for most or all dimensions of
social and/or psychological distance to be negative? And as all the
dimensions are relative, not absolute, as Schumann recognizes, how
positive or negative need they be before predictions are made? Also, can a
positive value on one dimension cancel out the effects of a negative value
on another? (p. 444)

31
 On his part, Baker (2001) underscores two limitations of the Acculturation Model:
the fact that it does not explain the internal mechanisms that operate in child second
language acquisition; and its tendency to consider social and psychological distance as
static or relatively slow-changing factors. In the same vein, Chizzo (2002) remarks
that Schumann does not take into account key factors such as age, family separation,
educational background (experiences), or the psychologically distressing experiences
of the refugee.

2.3.4. Relevance

In spite of its shortcomings, the Acculturation Model was chosen as the

theoretical framework of this study, for two main reasons. The first is that it
emphasises the importance of context (the language community) in second language
acquisition (Baker, 2001). As Ahamefule (2019: 77) puts it, “the strength of
Schumann`s model is that it highlights the socio-cultural context of language learning
without neglecting the role of individuals in the language learning process”. This is
specifically important for understanding the relationship between the situation of the
IDPs in Mbouda and their acquisition of spoken French.

The other reason is that the Acquisition Model is a theory of acquisition and
not learning (following Krashen’s distinction, cf. section 2.1.2). This is relevant for
the study as it deals with speaking skills, which are usually associated with acquisition,
and are regularly pointed out as a weak point in the teaching of English in Cameroon.

2.4. PREVIOUS LITERATURE ON ACCULTURATION AND

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

This review centres on the relationship between acculturation and L2

achievement, taking up acculturation globally, but also in one of its components,
namely social distance. The following themes are developed: acculturation and L2

32
oral proficiency, acculturation and L2 pragmatic competence, and social distance and
L2 acquisition.

2.4.1. Acculturation and L2 oral proficiency

Several studies have found acculturation to be strongly correlated with L2 oral

proficiency (Graham & Brown, 1996; Jiang et al., 2009; Muftah, 2013). Muftah (2013)
established a link between the oral communicative competence of four teenage Lybian
students who had lived in Australia between 3 and 5 years and their successful
integration into the Australian society. The teenagers (aged 13-18), who had an
elementary level at their arrival in the country, rated ‘Advanced’ in the ACTFL Test
(Communicative competence test) they were subjected to during the study. This result
was related with a globally positive perception of the target culture and easy
interaction with their Australian peers. Jiang et al. (2009) obtained similar results on a
population made up of teenage Chinese immigrants in the USA. However, neither
they nor Muftah were able to establish a relationship between acculturation and
pronunciation. The perception factor was also found to be decisive in the study carried
out by Graham and Brown (1996) to find out why native Spanish speakers in a small
town in the North of Mexico – with a sizeable English-speaking minority population
and a two-way bilingual programme in the schools – were developing native-like
proficiency in English. After conducting simple interviews and oral proficiency
interviews on a sample representing 9% of the Spanish-speaking households, they
came to the conclusion that the high proficiency levels exhibited by the respondents
were more likely due to their favourable attitudes towards the English-speaking
community and the fact that they developed close friendships with native English-
speaking peers, than to the English instruction they received in the bilingual schools.

2.4.2. Acculturation and L2 pragmatic competence

An important constituent of language competence, pragmatic competence tends

to be overlooked in acculturation studies. Recent studies have, however, elucidated its
33
relationship with acculturation. In one of them, Rafieyan, Behnammohammadian and
Orang (2015) probed the relationship between acculturation attitude and the
comprehension of target language implicatures in a study involving 80 Iranian
undergraduates studying English in Australian universities. The data was collected via
a questionnaire and a pragmatic comprehension test. The results obtained after
applying the Spearman rank order correlation measure indicated a strong positive
relationship between level of attitude towards the target language culture and
pragmatic comprehension ability. This conclusion was confirmed in a subsequent
research by Rafieyan (2016) on a slightly different population (50 Iranian
postgraduate students in Australia) using a discourse completion test and the adapted
version of Berry’s (2001) East Asian Acculturation Measure (EAMM).

2.4.3. Social distance and L2 acquisition

A number of studies focus on finding the relationship between social distance

and L2 acquisition. On this point, the findings generally point to a negative correlation
between social distance and L2 acquisition, as in Maple’s (1982) study among 190
Spanish-speaking adults enrolled in the Intensive English Program of the University
of Texas or in Al-Qahtani’s (2016) research involving 23 members of a small Arab
community residing in a college town in the Midwest of the USA. With the help of
personal interviews, field observations, and a questionnaire, Al-Qahtani measured the
incidence of perceived social distance on their acquisition of English. The findings
identified intended length of residence as a catalyst of acculturation and language
acquisition. As a matter of fact, it appeared that, the longer the Arab residents
intended to stay in the US, the smaller their perception of social distance, and the
better their perception of their own proficiency were.

As a component of social distance, the role of ethnolinguistic vitality (language

status) in acculturation and language acquisition has also been investigated. One of the
important studies in this respect was carried out by Clément (1986) among

34
Francophone students at the University of Ottawa, Canada. The respondents were
divided into two groups: students with a majority background (n = 183), and those
with a minority background (n=110), and requested to fill out a questionnaire
including measures of ethnolinguistic vitality, attitudes and motivation. They were
equally interviewed to assess their oral proficiency in English as a second language.
Analysis of the data showed that minority group members evidenced more self-
confidence in their ability to use the second language and greater proficiency in the
second language than majority group members. Level of acculturation was a function
of proficiency in the second language and an interactive function of language status
and frequency of contact. In Cenoz and Valencia’s (1993) study, 139 Spanish L1
secondary school students living in the Basque Country were assessed on subjective
ethnolinguistic vitality, social networks, and motivation, as well as their Basque and
Spanish proficiency. A MANOVA analysis of the data revealed that, compared to a
Basque-speaking control group (n=121), the Spanish-speaking students scored
significantly lower on all the measures except achievement in Spanish. The findings
of these two studies establish the claim that, the higher the L1 status is, the less likely
acquisition is going to take place.

2.5. CONCLUSION OF THE CHAPTER

In all, although this study is based on Schumann’s Acculturation Model, yet it

cannot overlook the contributions made by other theories to the understanding of
second language acquisition. And it can be seen that the Acculturation Model shares a
number of views with other proposals, for example as concerns the importance of
exposure, and the role of affective factors in the acquisition of a second language. For
this reason, the analysis and discussion of the findings (Chapters IV and V) will take
into account both sets of theories. In the meantime, the next chapter (Chapter III) will
present the methodology used to carry out this research.

35
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.0. INTRODUCTION

This part of the work describes the research process proper, focusing on aspects
related to its preparation, conduct, and the subsequent processing of the data obtained.
Specifically, the following items will be taken up in turn: the research design (3.1.),
the sample population (3.2.), the data collection instrument (3.3.) and procedure (3.4.),
and the data analysis scheme (3.5.).

3.1. DESIGN

This research is a mixed methods study, with emphasis on the qualitative aspect.
Creswell and Plano Clark cited by Creamer (2018, p.4) consider mixed methods
research to be both a methodology and a method. As a methodology, “it involves
philosophical assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis and
the mixing of qualitative and quantitative approaches in many phases of the research
project”. Creamer specifies four philosophical assumptions that underlie mixed
methods research (p.5):

i) Qualitative and quantitative data and qualitative and quantitative methods

are not incompatible;
ii) There is added value by the combination of qualitative and quantitative
approaches to produce more robust findings;
iii) The corroboration of multiple types of data or multiple data points (i.e.,
triangulation) enhances validity;
iv) The use of a combination of methods can offset the weaknesses inherent in
any method.

36
 As a method, mixed method research “focuses on collecting, analyzing, and
mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of studies”
(Creamer, 2018, p.4). The following table outlines the potential contributions of
qualitative and quantitative approaches to a mixed methods study.

Table 3: Potential contributions of qualitative and quantitative approaches to a

mixed methods study by phase (Creamer, 2018)
Phases of the Quantitative Qualitative
research process

Design Variable oriented (offers Case oriented (offers depth)

breadth)
Process oriented
Addresses what and why
Can also address how questions
questions

Data collection Numbers Words

Sampling Allows for generalizability Can pursue negative case or

exemplary case

Analysis Deductive Context bound

Confirmatory
Inductive and sometimes
Used to test theory
emergent

Exploratory

Used to produce or modify

theory

Inferences Interpretations that extend the Interpretations that extend the

data data

37
 With reference to this table, at the design phase, our research addresses both
what and why questions: what, to discover the social and psychological situation of
internally displaced students, as well as their self-rated level of spoken French; and
why, to discover the reason for their high or low level in connection with the
Acculturation Model. Concerning data collection, this study collects both numbers
(e.g. number of students who attend religious services) and words (opinions expressed
in open-ended questions). As for sampling, it does not pursue generalizability. Lastly,
at the level of analysis, this study tests the Acculturation Model, but also explores
original experiences lived by internally displaced students.

3.2. SAMPLE POPULATION

The sample of this study is made up of 38 Anglophone internally displaced

adolescents residing and attending secondary school in Mbouda, Bamboutos Division.
They were selected via convenience sampling out of the population of internally
displaced students currently living in Mbouda. It is reported that, as of 2020, a total of
3,372 displaced students were present in the Bamboutos Division (Safotso, 2020).

Convenience sampling appeared to be the best option, due to temporal and

financial limitations, which did not allow the researchers to access a large number of
internally displaced students. The respondents are therefore those that the researchers
were able to contact via their research assistant. However, participation in this study
was purposely restricted to school-age adolescents in consideration of the fact that this
research is a contribution to pedagogy, especially language education at secondary
level.

3.3. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT

The instrument used to collect data in this study is in two parts: the first is a
questionnaire or, in the words of Kothari (2004, p.7), an ‘opinionnaire’ which uses
attitude scales to gather information about the students’ social and psychological

38
integration into their new environment; the second is a self-assessment checklist
whereby the students rate their oral ability in the French language.

3.3.1. Questionnaire
3.3.1.1. Structure

The questionnaire part of the instrument is divided into three sections (A, B, and
C), which aim to capture specific information. Thus:

 Section A (‘Background’) is mainly concerned with information on the

respondent’s life before their displacement to Mbouda, including their place of
residence, level of education and previous contact with the French language. It
includes 11 items, of which 06 are close-ended questions and 05 are open-
ended questions.

 Section B (‘Social integration into the new environment’) captures the social
configuration of the respondent’s new living environment, as well as their level
of involvement with the target group. In other words, this section is intended to
measure the respondent’s social distance with the target group. It is made up of
10 items (03 open-ended questions).

 Section C (‘Experience living in the new environment’) focuses on the

psychological aspect of the respondent’s stay in their new environment. Such
variables as attitude towards OL2 (second official language) and the target
group, perception of the attitude of the target group, nostalgia, and intended
length of residence are explored. It comprises 6 items (02 open-ended follow-
up questions).

The three sections of this questionnaire are designed to cover the two main group
of variables spelt out by Schumann’s acculturation theory, viz. social distance and
psychological distance, in addition to collecting general information on the respondent.
On the whole, the structure of this part of the instrument reflects this partition. It is,

39
however, important to mention that some variables are tackled in more than one
section of the questionnaire.

3.3.1.2. Justification

It is a fact that, for a study such as this one, an interview would be better suited as
the main collection method, as it would bring more depth to the data (Kothari, 2004).
While this is true, it remains that a questionnaire with open-ended questions – often
called ‘qualitative questionnaire’ – can be an acceptable replacement, when it is not
possible to carry out interviews (as in this case, for the reasons already mentioned).
Qualitative questionnaires collect material about everyday life, opinions, customs, etc.
and offer comparable depth of analysis to the researchers, with the advantage that the
respondents can review and modify their responses before returning the questionnaires
(Rivano Eckerdal & Hagström, 2017). In addition to this, it could be useful to mention
that Schumann himself used a 15-item questionnaire to assess psychological distance
in his pioneer study with his 33-year-old Costa Rican subject, Alberto (Ushioda,
1993). Questionnaires are therefore not utterly unfit tools for studies in acculturation.

In this study, both closed and open-ended questions were used in the questionnaire.
Closed-ended questions were used for items that did not necessitate detailed
explanations from the respondents, like background information or attitude scales, and
open-ended questions were used to collect data on personal opinions.

3.3.2. Self-assessment checklist

3.3.2.1. Description

The self-assessment checklist is made up of 64 statements to be validated or

invalidated by the respondent (with a tick). The statements concern what the
respondent can do orally using the French language (e.g. Introduce himself and other
people), and are organised by order of increasing difficulty. Thus, there are four levels,
labelled A1, A2, B1 and B2, respectively, in line with the levels of the Common

40
European Framework of Reference (CEFR) [see table below]. The statements
themselves are also adapted from the CEFR.

Table 4: CEFR Proficiency levels (Adapted from CEFR, 2001)

CEFR Proficiency levels Description

A A1 (Beginner) Basic user

A2 (Elementary)

B B1 (Lower Intermediate) Independent user

B2 (Upper Intermediate)

C C1 (Advanced) Proficient user

C2 (Proficient)

The two uppermost levels (C1 and C2) are left out of our checklist, since they
correspond to near-native proficiency, which the researchers assume the population
cannot possibly have attained in the span of their stay in Mbouda.

The 64 statements of the checklist are distributed among the four levels of
proficiency as follows:

Table 5: Number of statements per proficiency level

Proficiency levels Number of statements
A1 (Beginner) 13
A2 (Elementary) 21
B1 (Lower Intermediate) 15
B2 (Upper Intermediate) 15
Total 64

41
 From A1 upwards, the respondent must answer ‘yes’ to 80% of the statements to
be rated at the immediately superior level.

3.3.2.2. Justification

The choice of a checklist to assess the respondents’ aural and oral abilities was
guided by the impossibility for the researchers to be physically present in Mbouda to
conduct interviews. And while a self-assessment checklist may not be the ideal
instrument to assess a learner’s language advancement (because it rests on the
respondent’s honesty and self-knowledge, cf. Baker, 2001), its abundance of detail
can help obtain an approximate picture of the reality, provided the respondent is well
guided and answers in good faith.

3.4. COLLECTION PROCEDURE

The data was collected in GBHS Mbouda during the months of February and
March, 2022, in three steps. First, the research assistant (a teacher in the school)
carried out a preliminary investigation to identify all the Anglophone internally
displaced students. Next, she met with those in Form 4 and explained the purpose of
the research to them. At the end of this first encounter, a date was set for the
administration of the instrument. This was done a few days later, in the classroom of
the students, courtesy of colleagues who graciously offered their teaching periods for
the exercise. Lastly, the research assistant collected the copies. It is important to
mention that the students were carefully instructed on how to fill in the questionnaire
and checklist.

3.5. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The data was processed with the help of the Sphinx v.5 software. In practice,
the questionnaire was reproduced in the interface (with a specific code for each item),
allowing for an automatic processing of the results. Thus, after the collection
procedure, the responses of every respondent were recorded with a simple click, or
42
keyed in (for open-ended questions). At the end of the process, the software-generated
tables were used for analysis on the basis of the proposals of the Acculturation Model.

3.6. DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED

The main difficulty encountered by the researchers in collecting the data was
that of lack of time to be physically present in Mbouda to carry out the procedure in
person. This motivated the use of a questionnaire in place of interviews, and limited
the number of displaced students that could be contacted. More decisively, it
prompted the recourse to a research assistant.

3.7. CONCLUSION OF THE CHAPTER

In summary, this chapter has described the practical aspect of the research
procedure, from design to data analysis. It has also provided a justification for the
choice of the instrument used, as well as a description of the difficulties encountered.
The next chapter will deal with the presentation and analysis of the data obtained.

43
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.0. INTRODUCTION

The current chapter deals with an essential part of this work, namely data
presentation and analysis. In practice, it will present the findings on the two sets of
acculturation variables (social distance and psychological distance) and characterise
them according to the expectations of the Acculturation Model. It will equally report
on the respondents’ level of French before and after displacement, as rated by them.
This will be preceded by the presentation of background data.

4.1. BACKGROUND DATA

This section presents background information about the population of study,

including age, gender, former and current place of residence, and level of education.

4.1.1. Age

Age is a relevant parameter in a study like this one, because the respondents
should be able to make a rational assessment of their displacement experience and
express their views appropriately. They should also be sufficiently socialised into the
second-language learning group and be aware of the happenings around them. None
of this is possible if they are too young.

Table 6: Age of respondents

Age Number Frequency

10-12 1 2.6%

13-14 9 23.7%

44
15-16 22 57.9%

17-18 5 13.2%

19-20 0 0.0%

21-22 1 2.6%

TOTAL 38 100%

In this study, 73.7% of respondents are aged between 15 and 22, while only
26.3% are aged between 10 and 14 years old (cf. Table 6). In principle, this means that
they are fully conscious of their environment and can report rationally on their
experiences.

4.1.2. Place of residence before the crisis

Under this section, the respondents were asked to provide information on both
their region (North-West or South-West) and their town/village of residence before
the crisis. This was in order to filter out Anglophones born in Mbouda, and retain only
recent arrivals from the English-speaking regions. Two such cases were recorded and
removed from the sample. Among the remaining 38 respondents, 63.2% formerly
resided in the North-West Region, as opposed to 34.2% in the South-West Region (cf.
Table 7).

Table 7: Region of residence before the crisis

Region Number Frequency

No answer 1 2.6%

North-West 24 63.2%

45
South-West 13 34.2%

Total 38 100%

The predominance of respondents from the North-West could be explained by

the geographical proximity between this region and the town of Mbouda, which is
reinforced by the fact that Mbouda is directly linked by road to Bamenda, the capital
city of the North-West Region.

4.1.3. Education before the crisis

Two types of information were collected for this section, namely the type of
school attended (Anglophone, Francophone or Bilingual), and the level of education
attained before the respondent’s displacement to Mbouda.

4.1.3.1. Education level before displacement

Data on the level of education of the respondents before displacement was

obtained via the question: “In which class were you in your former school?” The
purpose of this question was to track any change from one subsystem of education to
the other.

Table 8: Education level before displacement

Q: In which class were you in your former school?

Class Number Frequency

No answer 3 7.9%

Class 5 2 5.3%

Class 6 5 13.2%

46
Form 1 17 44.7%

Form 2 9 23.7%

Form 3 2 5.3%

Total 38 100%

Table 8 shows that the majority of respondents were in their first year of
Anglophone secondary school (Form 1) when they moved to Mbouda. It also shows
that seven of them were still in primary school (Class 5 and Class 6). The implication
of this is that none of the students moved from one subsystem of education to the
other.

4.1.4. Exposure to French before the crisis

To the question “Did you learn any French while in NW/SW?” more than three
quarters (76.3%) answered ‘Yes’, while only 23.7% answered ‘No’, as Table 9 shows.

Table 9: Exposure to French before the crisis

Q: Did you learn any French while in NW/SW?

Exposure to French before the crisis Number Frequency

Yes 29 76.3%

No 9 23.7%

Total 38 100%

Out of the 29 who reported previous exposure to French, 21 (55.3%) indicated

school as the place of exposure. Three (03) others indicated the street, and four (04)
said they had been exposed to French in both places (cf. Table 13).

47
Table 10: Place of exposure to French

Q: If yes, where (did you learn French)?

Place of exposure to French Number Frequency

No answer 10 26.3%

At school 21 55.3%

In the street 3 7.9%

Both 4 10.5%

Total 38 100%

The next question in this category was related to immersion experiences in a

French-speaking area, especially during long holidays (“Had you spent your holidays
outside NW/SW before the crisis?”). To this, half of the respondents answered ‘Yes’,
while the other half answered ‘No’ (cf. Table 11).

Table 11: Holidays in a French-speaking area

Q: Had you spent your holidays outside NW/SW before the crisis?

Holidays in a French-speaking area Number Frequency

Yes 19 50.0%

No 19 50.0%

Total 38 100%

Among those who answered ‘Yes’, 12 specified that they had spent their
holidays outside their home region only once or twice, while 09 mentioned three times
or more (cf. Table 12).
48
Table 12: Number of holidays in a French-speaking area

Number of holidays in a French-speaking area Number Frequency

No answer 17 44.7%

Once or twice 12 31.6%

Three times or more 9 23.7%

Total 38 100%

In conclusion to this section, it can be said that, while the majority of

respondents indicated having been exposed to French before the outbreak of the crisis,
yet in most cases this exposure was not massive. As a matter of fact, it was most often
limited to the classroom (for at most three hours per week, as per the official syllabi,
MINESEC, 2014).

4.1.5. Current place of residence

The respondents indicated 17 different places of residence (cf. Table 13), the
most cited being ‘Bamessingue’ – also called ‘Quartier Anglophone’ by some
respondents (6 observations), and ‘Nylon’ (5 observations).

Table 13: Current place of residence of respondents (Neigbourhood)

Q: In which neighbourhood do you live?

Neighbourhood Number Frequency

Bamessingue 6 20.0%

Nylon 5 16.7%

Bamiboro 3 10.0%

49
Caplabam 2 6.7%

Lycée Bloc Deux 2 6.7%

Babadjou 1 3.3%

Bamesso 1 3.3%

Banock 1 3.3%

Behind SNEC 1 3.3%

Broder 1 3.3%

Camp Berto 1 3.3%

Lafi 1 3.3%

Le Bien 1 3.3%

Mouncho 1 3.3%

Prison 1 3.3%

Street Jahova 1 3.3%

Texaco 1 3.3%

TOTAL 30 100.0%

This distribution seems to indicate that Anglophone IDPs are present all over
the town of Mbouda, even though their presence is stronger in some neighbourhoods.
They are therefore not cloistered in a ghetto, but enjoy contacts with the other
inhabitants of the town.

50
 4.1.6. Summary of background data

The analysis of the respondents’ background data reveals that most of them are
adolescents, of whom an almost equal number of boys and girls. The majority lived in
the North-West Region and had started Anglophone secondary education before the
outbreak of the crisis. Back in their former place of residence, they were exposed to
French mainly in the classroom. Currently, they are spread over 17 locations in the
town of Mbouda, with a concentration in Bamessingue, which is also called ‘Quartier
Anglophone’.

4.2. SOCIAL DISTANCE VARIABLES

This section groups the responses obtained for items linked to social distance.
In Schumman’s view, social distance concerns “the individual as a member of a social
group which is in contact with another social group whose members speak a different
language (Cited by Ushioda, 1993, p.2). According to the Acculturation Model, “the
greater the social distance between a learner and the target group, the more difficult
second language acquisition will be” (Muniz-Cornejo, 2002, p. 18) . Seven of the
eight variables initially proposed by Schumann are discussed in this section, namely
size and cohesiveness of second-language learning group, integration pattern,
enclosure, cultural congruence and length of residence. Elements pertaining to inter-
group attitudinal evaluations appear in section 4.3.2 (‘Culture shock’).

4.2.1. Size and cohesiveness

Schumann’s model establishes a relationship of inverse proportionality between

the size and cohesiveness of the second-language learning group, and the probability
of contacts between the source and target groups. In other words, the larger the
second-language learning group is (and the more cohesive it is), the less likely it is to
have contacts with the target group, and the slower will the acquisition of the target
language be (Muftah, 2013).

51
 4.2.1.1. Size

In this study, the size of the IDP group was probed through Item 15, with the
following question: “From your observation, how many Anglophone families live in
your close environment?” Table 17 shows the responses that were obtained.

Table 14: Size of second-language learning group

Q: From your observation, how many Anglophone families live in your close
environment?
Size of second-language learning group Number Frequency

None 4 10.5%

Few 21 55.3%

Many 13 34.2%

Total 38 100%

The results show that, in 55.3% of cases, the size of the second-language
learning group is small, as opposed to 34.2% of cases in which it is large. It is
noteworthy that, in 10.5% of cases, the IDP families have no Anglophone neighbours.

4.2.1.2. Cohesiveness

The indicator of cohesiveness chosen in this study is participation in 2LL group

activities, especially community meetings. On this point, it appears that the
overwhelming majority of the respondents (81.6%) do not attend Anglophone
community meetings.

52
Table 15: Participation in second-language learning group activities

Q: Do you attend any Anglophone community meetings?

Participation in second-language learning group
Number Frequency
activities

Yes 7 18.4%

No 31 81.6%

Total 38 100%

As Table 19 shows, out of the 07 respondents who take part in Anglophone

community meetings, only one attends them once a week, while the others do once a
month (N=5) or once every two weeks (N=2).

Table 16: Participation in second-language learning group activities (Frequency)

Q: If yes, how often?

Participation in second-language learning group
Number Frequency
(Frequency)

No answer 30 78.9%

Once a month 5 13.2%

Once every two weeks 2 5.3%

Every week 1 2.6%

Total 38 100%

These findings indicate that, on the whole, cohesion within the second-
language learning group is low.

53
 4.2.2. Integration pattern

Following the Acculturation Model, the 2LL may adopt three integration
patterns: assimilation (giving up their own lifestyle and values and embrace those of
the target language group), adaptation or acculturation (adopting the lifestyle of the
TL group while preserving their cultural features and values) or preservation
(completely rejecting the TL culture and maintaining their own culture and values)
[Ushioda, 1993].

In this study, the integration pattern of the respondents was inferred from their
level of involvement with the out-group. In turn, involvement with the out-group was
measured via three questions related to company and friendship with Francophones, at
school and out of school.

The first question of this series was the following: “Do you have any
Francophone friends?” It turns out that the vast majority of respondents (32/38 or
84.2%) have Francophone friends (cf. Table 20).

Table 17: Involvement with out-group

Q: Do you have any Francophone friends?

Involvement with the out-group Number Frequency

Yes 32 84.2%

No 6 15.8%

Total 38 100%

As for company at school, a weaker majority of respondents (55.3%) spend

time with both Anglophones and Francophones, whereas 28.9% spend their time
mostly with other Anglophones, and only 10.5% do the same with Francophones (cf.
Table 21).
54
Table 18: Company at school

Q: Who are the people you spend time with at school?

Company at school Number Frequency

No answer 2 5.3%

Mostly Anglophones 11 28.9%

Mostly Francophones 4 10.5%

Both (I can’t tell) 21 55.3%

Total 38 100%

Out of school, the tendency is almost similar, except for the fact that 09
respondents provided no answer to this question. As a matter of fact, 34.2% of
respondents spend time with both Francophones and Anglophones, 23.7% mostly with
other Anglophones, and 18.4% mostly with Francophones.

Table 19: Company out of school

Q: Who are the people you spend time with out of school?
Company out of school Number Frequency

No answer 9 23.7%

Mostly Anglophones 9 23.7%

Mostly Francophones 7 18.4%

Both (I can’t tell) 13 34.2%

Total 38 100%

55
 What this data shows is that, in their majority, Anglophone internally displaced
students do not segregate from the Francophone population. On the contrary, they
mingle with them and establish friendships, and some of them even spend most of
their time with Francophones rather than with other Anglophones. Unfortunately,
friendship and company do not seem to be sufficient indicators to conclude as to
whether the respondents assimilate to the local culture – abandoning their original
culture and values – or simply acculturate, i.e. adopt the culture and values of
Francophones, whilst preserving theirs. The analysis of their attitudes towards the
locals of Mbouda could help obtain a clearer picture of the situation (cf. section 4.2.4.).

4.2.3. Enclosure

Enclosure is related to the level of interpenetration between the second-

language learning group and the out-group. This is observable by whether or not both
groups share social institutions like places of worship, schools, markets, clubs,
associations, etc. (Muftah, 2013; Ahamefule, 2019).

To assess the level of interpenetration of the two communities in this study,

three social places were considered: the neighbourhood, the school, and the church or
mosque. As for the school, it is a given that all the respondents attend a bilingual
school, and thus share this institution with Francophones.

To assess interpenetration in the neighbourhood, we asked the following

question: “In your neighbourhood, Francophones and Anglophones live…” the
options being ‘together’ and ‘separately’. Table 23 summarises the data obtained for
this question.

56
Table 20: Interpenetration in the neighbourhood

Q: In your neighbourhood, Francophones and Anglophones live:

Interpenetration in the neighbourhood Number Frequency

No answer 1 2.6%

Together 16 42.1%

Separately 21 55.3%

Total 38 100%

This table shows that, in most cases (55.3%), Anglophones and Francophones
live separately, which could mean that, in some neighbourhoods, Anglophones are
concentrated in specific areas (hence the term ‘Quartier Anglophone’ earlier
mentioned). It is however worth mentioning that a good number of respondents
(42.1%) do not live in this configuration, but rather in areas where Francophones and
Anglophones mix.

The last indicator was interpenetration in the place of worship, which was
assessed using two questions (main and follow-up). In the first question, the
respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they go to church or the mosque
(‘Attendance at religious services’). To this, the vast majority (81.6%) answered ‘yes’
(cf. Table 24).

57
Table 21: Attendance at religious services

Q: Do you go to church/the mosque?

Attendance at religious services Number Frequency

Yes 31 81.6%

No 7 18.4%

Total 38 100%

From this data, it is impossible to specify which type of church or mosque the
respondents attend (Anglophone or Francophone). However, this insufficiency is
made up for by the responses to the follow-up question (“If yes, indicate, for each
language, its percentage of use during services”). These show that English and French
are used in equal proportions (50% each) in half of the churches or mosques (cf. Table
25), which supposes that the places of worship in question are mixed.

Table 22: Percentage of language use during religious services

Q: If yes, indicate, for each language, its percentage of use during services

Percentage of language use during religious services Number Frequency

English 100% 03 13.64%

English 95% - French/Other 5% 01 4.55%

English 75% - French 25% 01 4.55%

English 70% - French 30% 01 4.55%

English 50% - French 50% 11 50%

58
English 50% - French/Other 50% 01 4.55%

English/Other 40% - French 60% 01 4.55%

English 20% - French 70% - Other 10% 01 4.55%

English 10% - French 90% 01 4.55%

English 5% - French 95% 01 4.55%

Total (answers) 22 100%

From the three indicators examined above, it appears that Anglophone

internally displaced students and the local population of Mbouda share the same social
institutions. According to the Acculturation Model, this should have a positive effect
their rate of acquisition of French.

4.2.4. Cultural congruence

Cultural congruence, as a factor of social distance, speaks of how similar the

source and the target cultures are (or are perceived). When they are similar, it is
believed that contact between the second-language learning group and the out-group is
facilitated, and that this has a positive impact on the rate of L2 acquisition (Muftah,
2013).

In principle, there should be congruence between most of the IDPs and the
locals, because of the ethnic proximity between them. (As earlier stated, the greater
part of the North-West Region shares a common heritage with the peoples of the West
Region, whether genetically, linguistically or culturally). It must be said, however,
that, as a bequest of colonisation, Cameroonians generally have a dual culture: one
that is linked to their ethnicity, and another that relates to their being Francophone or
Anglophone. Recent history has shown that the latter tends to be more important to

59
individuals than the former, all the more so as ethnic languages and practices are in
decline among younger generations.

In this study, data related to cultural congruence was collected via the
following question: “Compared to where you lived before, the lifestyle of the people
in this city is…” the options being ‘very different’, ‘slightly different’, ‘similar’, and
‘very similar’. It obtains that 76.3% of respondents consider that the lifestyle of the
locals is very different from that of their place of origin, and only 5.3% view the two
as similar (cf. Table 26).

Table 23: Distance between source and target cultures

Q: Compared to where you lived before, the lifestyle of the people in this city is…

Distance between Source and Target cultures Number Frequency

Very different 29 76.3%

Slightly different 7 18.4%

Similar 2 5.3%

Very similar 0 0.0%

Total 38 100%

When asked to specify the perceived differences between the lifestyle of their
place of origin and that of their new environment, the respondents mostly mention
language and behaviour (16 times each); then the environment (12 times), dressing
habits (03 times), and food (once) [cf. Table 27].

60
Table 24: Elements of difference between 2LL culture and target language
culture

Q: What things are different?

Elements of difference between 2LL Number of Frequency

culture and target language culture citations

Language 16 33.33%

Behaviour 16 33.33%

Environment 12 25%

Dressing 03 06.26%

Food 01 2.08%

Total 48 100%

Concerning language, it is interesting to note that, although language difference

was mostly linked to French, there are two instances where the respondents seem to
have included ethnic languages:

(1) “Their way of speaking their languages” (Respondent 16)

(2) “People here are usually speaking only their tongue” (Respondent 13)

As for differences in behaviour, the comments were mostly negative, including

accusations of xenophobia, tribalism, and uncleanliness. On xenophobia, one of the
recurrent responses was “the Francophones are not welcoming”. Another respondent
put it more crudely: “they are wicked” (Respondent 25), while others specified: “some
ignore us when we speak English” (Respondent 7); “the Francophones usually insult
Anglophones and mock at them when they make a mistake in French” (Respondent
34); and “they sell things at higher prices” (Respondent 25). The respondents also
touched on tribalism: “They do practise tribalism” (Respondent 14); “their way of

61
supporting their tribe” (Respondent 5); and uncleanliness: “The people here are dirty”
(Respondent 20).

Comments under ‘environment’ mainly pertained to differences in the quality

of infrastructure and facilities, like roads, hospitals, and markets. Most respondents
considered that the infrastructure was better in their place of origin than in Mbouda,
whether in terms of size or hygiene. For example, respondent 12 said: “Where I lived
there were very large markets compared to this one. My old town was very clean but
this one is very dirty”. But all comments were not negative, such as the following,
made by respondent 37: “The market is not very nice but [it is] very big and sell[s]
many things”.

In summary, most respondents view their community as a very distinct entity

from the locals. In this regard, it is striking that they do not identify on the basis of
their ethnicity, but on the basis of their sense of belonging to the Anglophone
community, a people with different values and habits. Thus, when they make
accusations of tribalism, they are not talking about their ethnic group, but about the
Anglophone community. We can therefore conclude that the sense of congruence
between the 2LL group and the TL group is very low.

4.2.5. Length of residence

Two aspects of length of residence are considered under this heading: actual
length of stay and intended length of stay. The first is concerned with the time that the
respondents have already spent in displacement in Mbouda, whereas the second deals
with their desire to stay on or leave the town after the crisis. It is supposed that a
longer stay means increased opportunities for contacts with the out-group, and thus,
for language acquisition (Muftah, 2013).

62
 4.2.5.1. Length of stay

To obtain data related to length of stay, the respondents were asked the
following question: “How long have you lived in this town/city?” The results are
shown below (Table 27).

Table 25: Length of residence

Q: How long have you lived in this town/city?

Length of residence (in years) Number Frequency

[0-1[ 4 10.5%

[1-2[ 2 5.3%

[2-3[ 6 15.8%

[3-4[ 13 34.2%

[4-5] 13 34.2%

Total 38 100%

As per Table 28, most respondents (68.4%) have lived in Mbouda for three to
five years. That is a relatively long time, as compared to those who have spent one or
two years (21.1%) or even less than a year (10.5%) in town.

4.2.5.2. Intended length of residence

Data related to intended length of residence was gathered via items 34 and 35.
In Item 34, the respondents were asked the question: “Would you be ready to stay in
this city when the crisis is over?” with the following answer options: “Yes, I like it

63
here” and “No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW”. The result
is given below.

Table 26: Intended length of residence

Q: Would you be ready to stay in this city when the crisis is over?

Intended length of residence Number Frequency

No answer 1 2.6%

Yes, I like it here 13 34.2%

No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW. 24 63.2%

Total 38 100%

Table 29 shows that most respondents (63.2%) wish to return to their former
place of residence, while 34.2% of them are willing to remain in Mbouda even after
the crisis. For each of the options, the respondents give diverse reasons, which appear
in Tables 30 and 31.

Table 27: Reasons for intended stay in Mbouda

Q35: Why (would you be ready to stay in Mbouda when the crisis is over)?

I wish to stay in Mbouda because… Number Frequency

There might be still be insecurity in NW/SW even after the 01 09.09%

crisis

I want to learn more French/about the culture of the locals 03 27.27%

I have created new relationships here 02 18.18%

64
I feel comfortable here 03 27.27%

I wish to further my studies here 02 18.18%

Total 11 100%

From this table it appears that almost all the respondents who intend to stay on
in Mbouda after the crisis feel comfortable in their new environment, to the extent that
some of them want to learn more French and get to know the local culture, while some
have created new relationships, and others are willing to further their studies there.
Only one respondent intends to stay for fear that insecurity might persist in his former
place of residence even after the crisis. This, according to him, is due to the fact that
“some people may decide and make gangs of thieves because there are so many guns
that are lost in the bushes so there will be kidnapping in NW and SW” (Respondent
34).

On the other hand, those who intend to return to their former place of residence
do so mainly out of frustration or homesickness. When asked the question, “Why (do
you wish to return to NW/SW when the crisis is over)?” their answers are the
following, grouped as per type (Table 31):

Table 28: Reasons for intended departure from Mbouda after the crisis

Q: Why (do you wish to return to NW/SW when the crisis is over)?

I wish to go back to NW/SW because… Number Frequency

I miss my hometown/relatives/friends 12 40%

I feel uncomfortable here/ I don’t feel welcome here 10 33.33%

The people of this town are not like us 03 10%

65
The climate here makes me sick 01 03.33%

Life is difficult for us here (We don’t have resources) 04 13.33%

Total 30 100%

Note: The figures in this table represent the number of times each response occurs, not the number of
respondents. The total frequency is rounded up.

Table 31 shows that a good proportion of students (40%) wish to return to the
North-West and South-West after the crisis because they miss their hometown or their
relatives, i.e. for affective reasons. Others do so because they feel uncomfortable in
Mbouda or rejected by the Francophones (33.33%). Some of them explain:

Most Francophones neglect us.The Francophones are not welcoming to us.

(Respondent 7)

People here love insulting Anglophones, they practise tribalism.

(Respondent 5)

There is discrimination and also Francophones don't want to see us.

(Respondent 17)

Another set of respondents (13.33%) justify their desire to leave by the tough
living conditions they face in Mbouda. Some indicate that their family finds it difficult
to pay the house rent or even buy food, because “[they] don't have resources [t]here to
earn money” (Respondent). As Fiala (2015) has shown, economic difficulties are a
very common corollary of forced displacement, and affected families often take a long
time to recover, even after they are back to their original place of residence.

From the rest of the answers, it can be remarked that cultural differences seem
to have little influence on the respondents’ decision to return home, as only 03
responses are linked to them. The same goes for health concerns, which appear only
once.
66
 On the whole, while there are internally displaced students who wish to stay on
in Mbouda after the crisis, most of the respondents have made up their mind to return
to their region of origin. An analysis of their justifications shows that their desire to
leave is more often than not fuelled by a negative perception of the out-group. This
seems to be in accordance with the observations made in the preceding section on
cultural congruence (4.2.4). To be clear, the majority of internally displaced students
seem to harbour resentment against the local population for perceived discrimination
and xenophobia.

4.2.6. Summary of findings on social distance

The findings obtained for social distance indicators are contrasted: on the one
hand, the respondents report small 2LL groups with low cohesion and low enclosure,
as well as a positive integration pattern, which are indicative of social proximity with
the target language group; but, on the other hand, they see little to no cultural
congruence between their group and the TL group, and they have a globally negative
view of the Francophones. In addition, most of them do not intend to stay in Mbouda
once the crisis is over.

4.3. PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE VARIABLES

Psychological variables are the second component of the Acculturation Model.

They are related to the second-language learner’s inner disposition towards the target
language and the target language group. Out of the five variables proposed by
Schumann, three will be taken up in this section, namely language shock, culture
shock, and motivation.

4.3.1. Language shock

The language shock factor highlights the fears, doubts and apprehensions that
may accompany the acquisition of the target language. It is the extent to which the

67
acquirer fears he will be ridiculous trying to speak the target language (Muftah, 2013;
Ahamefule, 2019).

Data related to this factor was collected via questions 28 and 32. In Question 28,
the respondents were asked to indicate how difficult they think the French language is.
They were given the following options: ‘easy to learn’, ‘not more difficult than any
other language’, ‘difficult to learn’ and ‘very difficult to learn’. The result appears in
Table 32 below.

Table 29: Opinion on the difficulty of French

Q: In your opinion, French is:

Difficulty of French Number Frequency

No answer 1 2.6%

Easy to learn 13 34.2%

Not more difficult than any other language 8 21.1%

Difficult to learn 14 36.8%

Very difficult to learn 2 5.3%

Total 38 100%

Table 32 shows that opinions are split as to whether French is ‘easy to learn’ or
‘difficult to learn’. The two options record almost the same percentage of answers
(34.2% for ‘easy’ and 36.8% for ‘difficult’). However, on the whole, those who do not
consider French as a difficult language (N=21 or 55.3%) outnumber those who do
(N=16 or 42.1%).
In Question 32, the respondents were asked to say how confident they feel

68
when they speak French, with the following answer options: ‘At times I’m afraid
people will laugh at my French’, ‘I don’t care what people think’, and ‘I feel very
confident’. As per Table 33, here also, no majority emerges, as most answers are
divided between indifference (‘I don’t care what people think’, 39.5%) and
apprehension (‘At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French’, 39.5%). A
minority of respondents however indicated that they feel very confident when
speaking French (21.1%). But, again, if we combine the responses under indifference
and confidence, we find that most of the respondents (60.6%) do not experience doubt
or fear when speaking French.

Table 30: Self-confidence when speaking French

Q: How confident are you when you speak French?

Self-confidence Number Frequency

At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French 15 39.5%

I don’t care what people think 15 39.5%

I feel very confident 8 21.1%

Total 38 100%

The foregoing tends to indicate that the respondents experience a relatively low
language shock. Most of them do not feel any pressure when trying to speak French,
and do not consider French to be a particularly difficult language.

4.3.2. Culture shock

Culture shock is conceived as the point to which L2 learners feel apprehension

and disorientation upon entering a new culture (Muftah, 2013) . Some elements of
culture shock are discussed in section 4.2.4 (‘Cultural congruence’, in which the
respondents specify what, according to them, makes their hometown different from
69
their current place of residence. And it can be observed that several of them have a
difficult contact with the locals, whom they consider to be xenophobic and tribalistic.

Under this section, culture shock is assessed through Items 27 and 33. In Item
33, the respondents were asked the following question: “how do you feel living in this
city?” The answer options were: ‘uncomfortable’, ‘homesick’, ‘can’t tell (undecided)’,
‘comfortable’, and ‘happy’. It results that 31.6% of respondents are hesitant about
how they feel, while 26.3% say that feel uncomfortable, and 18.4% are homesick. In
the meantime, 15.8% feel happy and 7.9% comfortable living in Mbouda (cf. Table
34).

Table 31: Experience living in Mbouda

Q: How do you feel living in this city?

Experience living in Mbouda Number Frequency

Uncomfortable 10 26.3%

Homesick 7 18.4%

Can’t tell (Undecided) 12 31.6%

Comfortable 3 7.9%

Happy 6 15.8%

Total 38 100%

In item 27, the respondents expressed their opinion on the attitude of the locals
towards foreigners, and especially IDPs. They were asked to complete the statement:
‘The people in this city are…’ with the following answer options: ‘unwelcoming’,
‘indifferent’, ‘welcoming’, and ‘very welcoming’. The results are provided in Table
34 below.
70
Table 32: Perceived out-group attitude

Q: The people in this city are…

Perceived out-group attitude Number Frequency

No answer 2 5.3%

Unwelcoming 17 44.7%

Indifferent 7 18.4%

Welcoming 9 23.7%

Very welcoming 3 7.9%

Total 38 100%

Table 35 shows that a majority of respondents (44.7%) consider the locals to be

unwelcoming, while 23.7% say that they are welcoming. Beside these two groups,
18.4% of the respondents think that the locals are simply indifferent. Only 7.9% of
them think they are very welcoming. On the whole, the internally displaced students
have a negative opinion about the locals.

The responses collected in this section point out that the respondents
experience an enormous stress trying to adapt to their new living environment. Most
of them do not feel welcome in this foreign land and are nostalgic of their place of
origin.

4.3.3. Motivation

Three items (29, 30 and 31) covered motivation in the questionnaire. In Item 29,
the respondents were asked to indicate how they feel about learning French. They
could choose between the options: ‘I dislike it’, ‘I have to, I don’t have a choice’, and
71
‘I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me’. The result shows that most respondents (52.6%) enjoy
learning French, because they think it is a plus to them. However, the proportion of
those who learn French merely out of necessity is also high (44.7%). In the meantime,
only one individual dislikes learning French (cf. Table 36).

Table 33: Motivation to learn French

Q: How do you feel about learning French?

Attitude to learning French Number Frequency

I dislike it 1 2.6%

I have to, I don’t have a choice 17 44.7%

I enjoy it; it’s a plus to me. 20 52.6%

Total 38 100%

The second and the third items (Items 30 and 31) probe the students’
motivation to learn French in a more direct way. In Item 30, the respondent is asked if
he is making any effort to learn French. This yes-no question is followed up by an
open question, which allows the respondent to provide a justification for his answer
(Item 31).

Table 34: Endeavour to learn French

Q: Are you making any effort to learn French?

Endeavour to learn French Number Frequency

Yes 38 100%

No 0 0.0%

Total 38 100%

72
 Table 37 shows that all the respondents are making efforts to learn French. In
other words, they are all motivated. Table 38 will show which type of motivation
prevails among them. The follow-up question, ‘Why?’ yielded five types of answers,
which are presented below:

Table 35: Reasons for learning French

Q: Why (are you making efforts to learn French)?

Types of answers Number of Frequency

citations

Cameroon is a bilingual country and I want to be 12 31.58%

bilingual

French will help me in my studies/the future/to get a job 13 34.21%

I live in a Francophone area/ I don’t want people to 02 05.26%

mock at me because I can’t speak French

It will help me to communicate with others, but also to 06 15.78%

get good grades/a job/in the future

I want to teach my brother 01 02.63%

No answer 04 10.54%

Total 38 100%

Table 38 shows that most students (34.21%) learn French to derive a benefit in
their studies or in prospect of a future job, while 31.58% do so because they want to
be bilingual, as their country is bilingual. Another 15.78% learn French for both
reasons, while one respondent (02.63%) wants to teach his brother the French
language.

73
 These different reasons can be grouped into types of motivation. Thus, number
1 and number 3 will fall under ‘integrative motivation’, since they express a desire to
be part of a community, whether the local or the national community. Conversely,
number 2 and number 5 will placed under ‘instrumental motivation’, because they
show a desire to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the dominant position
of the French language in Cameroon. A third category will be ‘mixed’, which will
feature answer 4, that is, a desire to be bilingual both to reflect the Cameroonian
identity and to reap a benefit in one’s academic or professional endeavours. This is
summarised in Table 39.

Table 36: Types of motivation

Types of motivation Number Frequency

Integrative 14 36.84%

Instrumental 14 36.84%

Mixed 06 15.78%

No answer 04 10.54%

Total 38 100%

From the above, it appears that integrative motivation and instrumental

motivation are equally present among Anglophone internally displaced students.
However, it is important to note that for this population, integrative motivation has
little to do with their immediate living environment. It can therefore be said that the
main driving force behind these students’ desire to learn French is not integration but
academic or professional profit.

74
 4.3.4. Summary of findings on psychological distance

Like social distance indicators, the findings obtained on psychological distance

are contrasted. For, while the respondents seem to have a globally positive attitude
towards the French language (low language shock and high motivation), this is less
the case with their attitude towards the population. As a matter of fact, most of them
do not feel welcome in Mbouda, due to perceived xenophobia and marginalisation by
the Francophones. As the intended length of residence variable has shown, this
translates to their being ready to return to their regions of origin as soon as the crisis is
over.

4.4. SELF-RATED LEVEL OF FRENCH AND ACCULTURATION

This section reports on the level of the respondents in French, as rated by them.
The data was obtained from the self-rating questionnaire, but also from two items of
the demographic questionnaire, in which the respondents were asked to assess their
level of French before the crisis and at this point of their stay in Mbouda.

4.4.1. Self-rated level of French before the crisis

Data on the level of the respondents before the crisis was collected through
Item 12, in which they were asked the question: “How would you rate your level of
French before the crisis?” with the following answer options: ‘Very poor’, ‘Poor’,
‘Acceptable’, ‘Good’ and ‘Very good’. This was done to identify their initial level and
track any improvement in their ability after their displacement to Mbouda, with the
knowledge that most of the respondents had been exposed to French before the
outbreak of the crisis, mainly in the classroom (cf. Section 4.1.5). The responses
obtained are summarised below (Table 40).

75
Table 37: Self-rated level of French before the crisis

Q: How would you rate your level of French before the crisis?

Level of French before the crisis Number Frequency

No answer 1 2.6%

Very Poor 8 21.1%

Poor 10 26.3%

Acceptable 9 23.7%

Good 5 13.2%

Very Good 5 13.2%

Total 38 100%

As per table 40, on the whole, the respondents did not rate their level of French
before the crisis very high. Actually, three quarters of them considered their French to
be either very poor (21.1%), poor (26.3%), or just acceptable (23.7%). It is however
notable that 26.4% of the respondents said that their level before coming to Mbouda
was good (13.2%) and even very good (13.2%).

4.4.2. Self-rated level of French now

As for data pertaining to their self-estimate of their level of French now, it was
collected via Item 13, with the question: “How would rate your French now?” The
answer options were the same as those of the previous question. The responses are
presented in Table 41.

76
Table 38: Self-rated level of French now

Q: How would rate your French now?

Level of French now Number Frequency

Poor 5 13.2%

Acceptable 16 42.1%

Good 10 26.3%

Very Good 7 18.4%

Total 38 100%

From this table, it is apparent that the respondents’ valuation of their level of
French has improved. As a matter of fact, none of them considers that his level of
French is still very poor (as opposed to 08 in Table 40), and only five rate their level
as poor (as opposed to 10 in Table 40). Moreover, most of them believe that their level
is now acceptable (42.1%), good (26.3%) or very good (18.4%). The figure below
provides a graphic representation of this evolution.

Figure 2: Self-rated level of French before and after displacement

77
 Figure 4 shows a decline in the lower levels (‘Very Poor’ and ‘Poor’) and a rise
in the higher ones (‘Acceptable’, ‘Good’, and ‘Very Good’). This is indicative of the
respondents’ perceived improvement in their ability to use the French language.

4.4.3. Level as per the self-rating questionnaire

To collect more specific data on their proficiency level, the respondents were
asked to fill in a 64-point checklist that consisted of statements to confirm or
invalidate about their ability to use the French language to carry out specific oral tasks
(cf. section 3.3.2.1). Four levels of proficiency were defined, according to the number
of statements confirmed: A1 (Beginner), A2 (Elementary), B1 (Lower Intermediate)
and B2 (Upper intermediate). The results are the following:

Table 39: Self-rated oral proficiency level

Self-rated oral proficiency level Number Frequency

No answer 1 2.6%

A1 21 55.3%

A2 10 26.3%

B1 4 10.5%

B2 2 5.3%

Total 38 100%

As per Table 42, more than half of the respondents (55.3%) rate as beginners.
This means that they can carry out simple actions like introducing themselves or other
people, giving personal information, asking and answering simple questions,

78
describing their environment, asking for things and giving people things, handling
numbers, quantities, cost and time, etc.

In the meantime, 26.3% rate their oral proficiency in French as elementary. In

addition to what precedes, they can make simple transactions in shops, post offices or
banks, use public transport, describe themselves, their family and other people, give
short, basic descriptions of events, describe their hobbies and interests in a simple way,
ask for attention and indicate when they are following, describe past activities and
personal experiences, etc.

The third group 10.5% is made up of those who rate as lower intermediate.
These can start, maintain and close simple face-to-face conversation on topics that are
familiar or of personal interest, ask for and follow detailed directions, narrate a story,
describe dreams, hopes and ambitions, explain and give reasons for their plans,
intentions and actions, use synonyms to clarify their statements, etc.

Only two respondents (5.3%) rate their proficiency as ‘upper intermediate’.

They are those whose level enables them to initiate, maintain and end discourse
naturally with effective turn-taking, exchange considerable quantities of detailed
concrete information on matters within their fields of interest, convey degrees of
emotion, and highlight the personal significance of events and experiences, speculate
about causes, consequences and hypothetical situations, etc. The distribution obtained
is represented in Figure 5:

79
Figure 3: Self-rated oral proficiency level

Figure 5 shows a clear majority of students in the lower levels (A1 and A2),
and a marginal number in the higher ones (B1 and B2). This result differs from the
one obtained in the preceding section, where the students globally rated their level as
acceptable or good. It is however more reliable, being based on concrete indicators,
rather than the opinion of the respondents. On this point, it is possible to speculate that
the respondents’ perception of what an acceptable level of French is does agree with
the indicators of the A1 level of proficiency (which were adapted from the CEFR). As
a matter of fact, the ability to achieve basic communication with one’s environment is
oftentimes sufficient to survive in an L2 context, and does not require much depth of
vocabulary (Van Zeeland and Schmitt [2012] suggest that knowledge of 2,000 to
3,000 word families is sufficient for listening comprehension). Thus, to a displaced
person, being able to introduce oneself and other people, buy items at the market, give
directions and describe one’s environment could well be a sign of an ‘acceptable’
level of French.

In addition, it is possible to assert that, in comparison with their former level,

the respondents have indeed improved; this, considering their own report, but also the
simple fact that their coming to Mbouda has placed them in a situation of immersion,
thus multiplying their opportunities to receive comprehensible input (cf. section
2.1.2.3) and practise the language. Research has established that immersive language
80
learning or acquisition in a natural setting has far more positive results in terms of
fluency than classroom instruction (Krashen, 1982; Freed, Segalowitz, & Pewey,
2004). In the case of these students, prior to their displacement, most of them had been
exposed to French only in the classroom (through formal instruction), which implies
very limited exposure to the language and few opportunities to develop abilities in it.
In view of this, it can be said that the students’ immersion experience in Mbouda has
resulted in an improvement in their level of French.

If is clear that the level of the displaced students has improved in the course of
their stay in Mbouda, it is however also apparent that it has not improved much, in
consideration of their average length of stay (3.76 years). Actually, most of the
respondents have not gone beyond beginner level, after more than three years and a
half of stay among French speakers.

4.5. CONCLUSION OF THE CHAPTER

This chapter has presented the analysis of the data collected for the social and
psychological variables of acculturation, as per the Acculturation Model. It obtains
that in both cases, the results are contrasted. As for the respondents’ self-rated level of
French, the findings have shown that it has progressed, though insufficiently. The next
chapter will bring out the implications of these results for the study.

81
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS AND GENERAL CONCLUSION

5.0. INTRODUCTION

This final chapter discusses the significance of the findings, verifies the
research hypotheses, and evaluates the contributions of the study to the domains
specified in the introduction. It also addresses the limitations of the study and presents
a few suggestions for further research.

5.1. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

The findings presented in the previous chapter uncover three aspects of the
acculturation experience of internally displaced students, namely the importance of
the choice factor in social acculturation; the entrenchment of negative valuations or
stereotypes between Anglophones and Francophones in Cameroon; and the
importance of affective factors in language acquisition. They are taken in turn below.

5.1.1. The importance of choice in social acculturation

The nuanced results obtained for social variables in this study possibly shed
light on the importance of choice in acculturation. Actually, the comparison of the
findings for spatial-relational and attitudinal variables of social distance seems to
indicate a superficial commitment on the part of the 2LL group towards the target
language group, which could be motivated by the necessity to survive in a strange
environment. Thus, the students’ proximity with the Francophone locals could be
interpreted as a survival strategy.

From what precedes, it seems that acculturation is best realised in situations

where involvement with the target language group results from the second-language
learner’s own choice. Conversely, it is limited in situations involving unplanned,

82
forced migration, especially when the possibility of returning to one’s former place of
residence is high. We posit that the latter is a fitting description of the situation of our
respondents.

5.1.2. The entrenchment of negative stereotypes between Anglophones and

Francophones in Cameroon

That the internally displaced students feel more at ease with French than with
the ‘Francophones’ (in reality, the locals of Mbouda) is revealing of the entrenchment
of negative intergroup valuations between Anglophones and Francophones in
Cameroon. In other words, negative stereotypes (as exemplified in this study, cf.
sections 4.2.4. and 4.3.2.) are still very much in circulation among the two
communities, which continue to perceive themselves as very different from each other.
Specifically, the findings of the preceding chapter signal a strong sense of belonging
to the Anglophone group not as a speech community but as an ethnic and cultural
group, with its distinct way of life. By extrapolation, these findings could point to the
idea that, among other hindrances, French-English bilingualism in Cameroon is also
limited by psychological factors.

5.1.3. The importance of affective factors in language acquisition

The findings for both groups of acculturation variables have shown affective
factors to be the main obstacle to the acculturation of Anglophone internally displaced
students to the target culture. This agrees with Krashen’s (1982) Affective Filter
Hypothesis, as spelt out below:

Those whose attitudes are not optimal for second language acquisition will
not only tend to seek less input, but they will also have a high or strong
Affective Filter – even if they understand the message, the input will not
reach the part of the brain responsible for language acquisition, or the
language acquisition device. Those with attitudes more conducive to second
language acquisition will not only seek and obtain more input, they will
also have a lower or weaker filter. They will be more open to the input, and
it will strike "deeper". (p.31)
83
 5.2. GENERAL CONCLUSION

5.2.1. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS

This study described the social and psychological aspects of the acculturation
experience of 38 internally displaced students from the North-West and South-West
regions of Cameroon in relation to their acquisition of spoken French. The
respondents had been living and attending school in Mbouda for an average time of
three and a half years. The data was collected via a questionnaire and a self-
assessment checklist, and analysed following the predictions of Schumann’s
Acculturation Model. The following results were obtained: socially, the respondents
were found to be well integrated in spatial and relational variables, but much less so in
attitudinal variables. Psychologically, they proved to be well disposed towards the
French language, but not towards the local population. As for the respondents’ spoken
French, it was found to have made insufficient progress over their time of stay. This
was attributed to their negative perception of the target language group, which was
thought to have favoured a high affective filter, hampering acquisition.

5.2.2. VERIFICATION OF HYPOTHESES

The following hypotheses were proposed in this research:

RH1: Anglophone internally displaced students enjoy social proximity with the
target language group;

RH2: Anglophone internally displaced students enjoy psychological proximity

with the target language and the target language group;

RH3: The acquisition of spoken French by Anglophone internally displaced

students is positively influenced by their acculturation experiences.

With respect to the first hypothesis, this study has found that, on the whole,
Anglophone internally displaced students enjoy proximity with the target group on

84
spatial and relational indicators like size, cohesiveness and enclosure, but that the
reverse is true for attitudinal indicators such as cultural congruence and intended
length of residence. As per the data collected, the internally displaced form a small,
incohesive group which is very open to the Francophone target group, with whom
they share facilities like schools, markets and places of worship, and with whom many
have created friendships. Nevertheless, they also consider themselves to be very
different from the target group – mainly in terms of behaviour (low cultural
congruence), do have a globally negative image of the locals and do not intend, for
most of them, to stay in Mbouda after the crisis. The first research hypothesis is thus
only partially validated.

Concerning the second research hypothesis, the findings reveal that

Anglophone internally displaced students experience very little language shock, and
that they are all motivated to learn French. However, culture shock appears to be their
main stumbling block. For, while the respondents report a globally positive attitude
towards the French language, their opinion about the local population is
overwhelmingly negative, as they feel uncomfortable and unwanted amidst a strange
population (cf. sections 4.2.4 and 4.3.2). As earlier pointed out, this results in their
desire to return to their place of origin as soon as the crisis is over. These nuanced
findings mean that the second research is also partially validated.

Lastly, data on self-rated proficiency level has revealed that, in spite of the
undeniable progress they have made, most displaced students still rate as A1
(Beginner), even after an average of three and a half years spent in Mbouda. This calls
for the conclusion that acculturation has insufficiently enhanced their acquisition of
spoken French. The implication of this is that our third research hypothesis is also
partially validated.

85
 5.2.3. SUGGESTIONS

The findings of this research motivate the formulation of the following

suggestions, addressed to language educators and local authorities.

5.2.4. To language educators

This study has drawn attention to the essential role of psycho-affective factors
in the acquisition of a second language. Specifically, it has shed light on the affective
struggles that internally displaced students experience in their target communities, and
has shown how these can have a tremendous impact on their language achievement,
especially how a depreciative opinion about the target language community can be a
major stumbling block to language acquisition in situations of displacement. In the
meantime, it has also highlighted the positive role of social integration in the
development of the communicative skills of this category of learners.
In view of the foregoing, language educators could implement the following
strategies to help their displaced learners lower their affective filter:
 Design activities that allow the students to express their feelings about their
displacement experience;
 Encourage activities that bring together students from the 2LL and the TL
groups;
 Organise group discussions and exchanges about war and displacement;
 Organise group discussions and exchanges about tolerance and acceptance;
 Promote class activities that enrich the students’ knowledge of the target
culture;
 Sensitise the TL community against discriminatory behaviour and
xenophobia.
 Initiate the learners to intercultural communication.

86
 5.2.5. To local authorities

One of the main findings of this study is the overwhelmingly negative attitude
of Anglophone internally displaced students towards the local population of Mbouda,
which is fuelled by perceived xenophobia and discrimination. Local authorities could
work towards changing this perception by implementing the measures below:

 Sensitise the local population against discrimination and xenophobia;

 Provide financial support to displaced families, to help them cope with life in
a strange area and feel accepted;
 Provide psychological assistance to all new arrivals from the conflict zone;
 Promote living together through intercultural events;
 Include members of the IDP community in decision-making processes; this
could foster a sense of acceptance among the members of the community.

5.3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

In spite of the contributions this study has made, it is necessary to highlight

some of its limitations, in the prospect of further research. These limitations chiefly
pertain to methodology.

The most important limitation of this study is the size of the sample. As a
matter of fact, with 38 respondents, it was not possible to apply statistical tests to
determine the weight of each social and psychological variable in the achievement of
internally displaced students. For the same reason, it will be difficult to use the
conclusions of this research to make inferences about the total population of internally
displaced students living in Mbouda.

Next to this limitation is the use of a self-rating questionnaire rather than an

actual language test to determine the respondents’ oral proficiency in French, which
causes the validity of the data obtained to rely on the good faith of the respondents.

87
 Another weak point of this work is the lack of complementary tools to add
depth to the analysis of the data. In this respect, interviews could have been carried
out, to obtain a clearer picture of the respondents’ acculturation experience. However,
this shortcoming was mitigated by the use of open-ended questions in the
questionnaire.

In relation to data on social distance, the design and number of questions asked
did not allow the researchers to determine with precision which acculturation strategy
was adopted by the respondents. This had to be inferred only at the discussion stage.
The same applies to the perception of the 2LL group by the target language group,
which was derived from the IDPs own comments about the TL group.

Lastly, no data was collected for some of the variables proposed by Schumann,
such as dominance, ego permeability and culture stress. The inclusion of these
variables could have provided a better understanding of the experience of Anglophone
internally displaced students in Mbouda.

In view of the findings of this study and the limitations highlighted in the
preceding section, we formulate the following recommendations for further research:

 Increase the sample size to be able to carry out statistical tests;

 Use interviews to obtain more depth of data;
 Design appropriate items to enable the determination of acculturation
strategies from the answers of the respondents;
 Collect data on all the social and psychological variables proposed by the
Acculturation Model.
 Move beyond self-rating and rate the displaced students’ oral proficiency via
appropriate tests;
 Test the displaced students’ ability in the other language skills i.e., listening,
reading, and writing, using appropriate testing tools.

88
 REFERENCES

BOOKS

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingualism and bilingual education (3rd ed.).

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Creamer, E. G. (2018). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research.

Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: methods and techniques (2nd ed.). New
Delhi: New Age International.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition (Online

ed.). Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1988). The natural approach: Language acquisition
in the classroom (2nd ed.). London: Prentice Hall.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (2014). An introduction to second language

acquisition research. New York: Routledge.

Meriläinen, L. (2010). Language transfer in the written English of Finnish

students.Joensuu: Publications of the University of Eastern Finland.

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development

processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Weinreich, U. (1963). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. London: Croom

Helm.

89
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. Edward Arnold.

ARTICLES AND BOOK CHAPTERS

Al-Qahtani, A. (2016). Acculturation and Perceived Social Distance among Arabs and
Saudi Arabians in an ESL situation. English Language Teaching, 9 (1).

Anagnostopoulos, D. C., Vlassopoulos, M., & Lazaratou, H. (2006). Forced

migration, adolescence, and identity formation. The American Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 66 (3), 225-237.

Asher, J. J., & Garcia, R. (1969). The optimal age to learn a foreign language. The
Modern Language Journal, 53 (5), 334-341.

Atechi, S., & Angwah, J. (2016). The attitudes of Anglophone and Francophone
Cameroonians towards Cameroon English as a model of English learning and
teaching in Cameroon. Journal of Education and Practice, 7 (13).

Barjesteh, H., & Vaseghi, R. (2012). Acculturation model for L2 acquisition: Review
and evaluation. Advances in Asian Social Science (AASS), 2 (4).

Bhela, B. (1999). Native language interference in learning a second language:

Exploratory case studies of native language interference with target language
usage. International Education Journal, 1 (1), 22-31.

Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1999). Confounded age: Linguistic and cognitive factors
in age differences for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong, Second
language acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 161-181).
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cenoz, J., & Valencia, J. F. (1993). Ethnolinguistic vitality, social networks and
motivation in second language acquisition: Some data from the basque country.
Language Culture and Curriculum .
90
Chizzo, J. (2002). Acculturation and language acquisition: A look at Schumann’s
acculturation model. George Mason University Language Minority Teacher
Induction Program: Action Research Projects .

Clément, R. (1986). Second language proficiency and acculturation: An investigation

of the effects of language status and Individual characteristics. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 5 (4).

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of

Applied Linguistics (5), 161-170.

Djoumguep, H. E. (2021, August 25). Civil War In Cameroon: Consequences of an

Unfinished Decolonization. Retrieved April 9, 2022, from Trends:
trndsresearch.org/insight/civil-war-in-cameroon-consequence-of-an-unfinished-
decolonization

Ekah, R. E. (2019). The Anglophone Crisis in Cameroon: A Geopolitical Analysis.

European Scientific Journal, 15 (35), 141-166.

Fiala, N. (2015). Economic consequences of forced displacement. Journal of

Development Studies, 51 (10), 1275-1293.

Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Pewey, D. P. (2004). Context of learning and second
language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and
intensive domestic programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (2),
pp. 275-301.

Fromkin, V., Krashen, S., Curtiss, S., Rigler, D., & Rigler, M. (1974). The
development of language in Genie: A case of language acquisition beyon the
"critical period". Brain and Language (1), 81-107.

91
Gass, S. (1983). A review of interlanguage syntax: Language transfer and language
universals. Language Learning, 34 (2).

Graham, C., & Brown, C. (1996). The effects of acculturation on second language
proficiency in a community with a two-way bilingual program. The Bilingual
Research Journal, 20 (2), 235-260.

Hammer, K., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2015). Acculturation as the key to ultimate
attainment? The case of Polish-English bilinguals in the UK. In F. Forsberg
Lundell, & I. Bartning, Cultural migrants and optimal language acquisition (pp.
178-202). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Jiang, M., Green, R. J., Henley, T. B., & Masten, W. G. (2009). Acculturation in
relation to the acquisition of a second language. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 30 (6), 481-492.

Kerr, J. (1988). A study of the identification of instances of language transfer and

interference in samples of writing and speech. Queensland Research, 4 (1), 4-
22.

Krashen, S. (1973). Lateralization, language learning, and the critical period: some
new evidence. Language Learning , 63-74.

Manga Edimo, R. M. (2021). Expertise on the Anglophone crisis in Cameroon: A

hybrid cultural boundary approach. International Review of Public Policy, 3 (3).

Matuszkiewicz, M., & Galkowskit, T. (2021). Developmental language disorder and

uninhibited primitive reflexes in young children. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research .

92
Mei Jiang, Green , R. J., Henley , T. B., & Masten, W. G. (2009). Acculturation in
relation to the acquisition of a second language. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 30 (6), 481-492.

Mels, C., Derluyn, I., Broekaert, E., & Rosseel, Y. (2010). The psychological impact
of forced displacement and related risk factors on Eastern Congolese
adolescents affected by war. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51
(10), 1096-1104.

Muftah, H. M. (2013). The investigation of the possible connections between

acculturation and the acquisition on Lybian teenage students. International
Journal of Cognitive and Language Sciences, 7 (10), 2805-2821.

Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative phonological

system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (5), 261-283.

Pa'ami Tchakote, G., & Chiatoh, B. (2020). A critical discourse analysis of the
language of internally displaced persons in Dschang, Cameroon. International
Journal of Humanitatis Theoreticus, 4 (2).

Rafieyan, V. (2016). Relationship between acculturation attitude and effectiveness of

pragmatic instruction. International Journal of Education and Literacy, 4 (3),
1-7.

Rafieyan, V., Behnammohammadian, N., & Orang, M. (2015). Relationship between

acculturation attitude and pragmatic comprehension. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 6 (3).

Ringbom, H. (2007). The importance of cross-linguistic similarities. The Language

Teacher Journal, 31 (9), 3-6.

93
Rivano Eckerdal, J., & Hagström, C. (2017). Qualitative questionnaires as a method
for information studies research. Information Research, 22 (1), CoLIS paper
1639.

Safotso, G. T. (2020). Internally displaced and refugee students in Cameroon: Some

pedagogical proposals. English Language Teaching, 13 (11), 140-144.

Saville-Troike, M. (1988). Private speech: Evidence for second language learning

strategies during the 'silent period'. Journal of Child Language (15), 567–590.

Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on the Acculturation Model of second language

acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7 (5), 379-
392.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics (3),

209-231.

Shaban Rafi, M. (2013). Natural order of vocabulary acquisition. European Academic

Research, 1 (5).

Singleton, D. (1995). Second Languages in the Primary School: The Age Factor.
TEANGA: The Irish Yearbook of Applied Linguistics , 155-166.

Singleton, D. (2007). The Critical Period Hypothesis: Some problems. Interlingüistica

(17), 48-56.

Singleton, D., & Lesniewska, J. (2021). The Critical Period Hypothesis for L2
acquisition: An unfalsifiable embarassment? Languages, 6, 149-164.

Ushioda, E. (1993). Acculturation theory and linguistic fossilization: A comparative

case study. CLCS Occasional Papers (37).

94
Van Zeeland, H., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening
comprehension: The same or different from reading comprehension? Applied
Linguistics 2013, 34 (3), 457-479.

Yousaf, F. (2018). Forced migration, human trafficking, and human security. Current
sociology, 66 (2), 209-225.

Zaker, A. (2016). The acculturation model of second language acquisition: Inspecting

weaknesses and strengths. Indonesian EFL Journal, 2 (2), 80-87.

THESES AND DISSERTATIONS

Ahamefule, L. (2019). The Acculturation Model in Second language learning: A

Cross-Linguistic study of a group of English-speaking Nigerian immigrants
learning German as a second language in Germany. Unpublished PhD Thesis,
University of East London.

Lamar, C. (2018). An exploratory study of acculturation experiences of graduate

student immigrants at the University of San Francisco. Unpublished Master’s
Dissertation, University of San Francisco.

Maple, R. F. (1982). Social distance and the acquisition of English as a second

language: A study of Spanish-speaking adult learners. Unpublished PhD thesis,
The University of Texas at Austin.

Muniz-Cornejo, A. Y. (2002). Social distance, motivation and other factors

contributing to success in language acquisition and achievement among
adolescent Mexican immigrants. Unpublished PhD thesis, California State
University at San Bernardino.

95
REPORTS

Alapini-Gansou, R. (2016, December 13). Press Release on the Human Rights

Situation in Cameroon Following strike actions of Lawyers, Teachers, and
Civil Society.

International Crisis Group. (2017). Cameroon's Anglophone Crisis at the Crossroads.

Report No 250 (Africa).

International Crisis Group. (2022, February 23). Rebels, victims, peacebuilders:

Women in Cameroon's Anglophone conflict. Retrieved March 18, 2022, from
crisisgroup.org: crisisgroup.org/africa/central-africa/cameroon/307-rebels-
victims-peacebuilders-women-cameroons-anglophone-conflict

United Nations High Commission for Refugees, UNHCR. (2019). Cameroon situation:
Responding to the needs of IDPs and Cameroonian refugees in
Nigeria .Supplementary appeal, UNHCR.

OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

Commune de Mbouda. (2011, August). Plan communal de développement de

Mbouda.

Ministère des Enseignements Secondaires, MINESEC. (2014). Programme de

français deuxième langue : Classes de Form 3, Form 4 et Form 5.

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA. (2004).
Guiding principles on internal displacement. United Nations Publication.

DICTIONARIES AND OTHER RESOURCES

96
Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2022). Ethnologue:
Languages of the world (Twenty-fifth ed.). Dallas, Texas: SIL International.

Morales, F., & Gilner, L. (2005). TheSage's English Dictionary and Thesaurus
(Software).

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (Eds.). (2004). Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th
Edition, Software). Oxford University Press.

Walter, E. (Ed.). (2008). Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (3rd Edition,

Software). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

97
APPENDIX

98
99
100
101
 Responses to the questionnaire

RESPONDENT 1

Age : 10-12
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [3-4[
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 2
Exposure to French before the crisis : No
Place of exposure to French :
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Very Poor
Level of French now : Poor
Neighbourhood :
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : No
Close environment :
Close environment1 :
Participation in in-group activities : No
Language use in in-group activities :
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) : Once a month
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC :
Perceived out-group attitude : Very welcoming
Attitude to French2 : Difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : It can help me in the future and it is important to learn French.
Self-confidence : I don’t care what people think
Acceptance of TE : Can’t tell (Undecided)
Intended length of residence : Yes, I like it here
Intended length of residence (reason) : I want to learn French
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 2

Age : 15-16
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis : Kumbo
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [3-4[
Education before the crisis : Bilingual
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Very Poor
Level of French now : Poor
Neighbourhood : Nylon
In-group density : Many
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : No
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones
Participation in in-group activities : Yes

102
Language use in in-group activities : English: 95%
Participation in in-group activities1 : Yes
Participation in in-group (Frequency) : Once every two weeks
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : Different languages; different behviours.
Perceived out-group attitude: Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : French is the only language that can bring people together in my location and it will help in the future.
Self-confidence : I don’t care what people think
Acceptance of TE : Can’t tell (Undecided)
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : Living n another town makes me feel uncomfortable and also missing my family
members as well.
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Mostly Anglophones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 3

Age : 13-14
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis : Bamenda
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [4-5]
Education before the crisis : Bilingual
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Acceptable
Level of French now : Very Good
Neighbourhood : Camp Berto
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : English: 100%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : The market here is very different from the one there and hospitals with roads.
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Not more difficult than any other language
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French: Yes
Attitude to French3 : It helps me to express myself around and in the future.
Self-confidence: At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French
Acceptance of TE : Comfortable
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : I miss my relatives and my school and my friends in Bamenda and also because the
people here are very rough to the extent that they kill others.
Self-rated level : B1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Both (I can’t tell)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 4

Age : 15-16
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis : Kumba
Region : South-West
Length of residence : [2-3[
103
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Poor
Level of French now : Good
Neighbourhood : Bamiboro
In-group density : None
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : English: 100%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : The language here is different from my language. Here people mostly speak in
French that I don't understand very well and it's also provocative because it's difficult to speak with them.
Perceived out-group attitude : Indifferent
Attitude to French2 :
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : It will help me in the future, because I want to pass my exams and also I want to learn how to be
speaking French with some of my Francophone friends and interact with them.
Self-confidence : I feel very confident
Acceptance of TE : Uncomfortable
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : This town is uncomfortable because I am not used to this town as compared to my
town and also because I would like to go back to my school and my family members.
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Mostly Anglophones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 5

Age : 13-14
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [2-3[
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Three times or more
Level of French before the crisis : Poor
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood : Mouncho
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Anglophone
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French 50%; English 50%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : The way the people dress, act, and the way they treat children. Their way of
supporting their tribe.
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming

104
Attitude to French2 : Not more difficult than any other language
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : In the future when you want to apply for a job you need French in Cameroon.
Self-confidence : At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French
Acceptance of TE : Can’t tell (Undecided)
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : People here love insulting Anglophones, they practise tribalism and they support
wrong punishment if cast down to Anglophones.
Self-rated level : B1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Both (I can’t tell)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 6

Age : 15-16
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [0-1[
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 2
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Very Poor
Level of French now : Poor
Neighbourhood : Bamiboro
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : No
Close environment : Mostly Anglophones
Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French:50%; English: 50%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Slightly different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : The language, the neighbourhood, the market, their greetings, the food they eat, and
their way of dressing.
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : To pass my exams because I love when I hear people speak and I also want to speak.
Self-confidence : At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French
Acceptance of TE : Homesick
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : I like my region and what we eat and how sociable we are in my area where I came
from. I also like our unity living.
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones/Mostly Anglophones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 7

Age : 15-16
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [3-4[
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 2
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
105
Number of holidays outside in-group : Once or twice
Level of French before the crisis : Very Poor
Level of French now : Poor
Neighbourhood : Nylon
In-group density : Many
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Mostly Anglophones
Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 50%; English 50%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : Neighbours here in Mbouda are not very welcoming towards us Anglophones. Some
ignore us when we speak English.
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : It will help me to be bilingual and interact well with people in society. It will help me to excel in my French
evaluation.
Self-confidence : At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French
Acceptance of TE : Uncomfortable
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : Most Francophones neglect us. The Francophones are not welcoming to us.
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones/Both (I can’t tell)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 8

Age : 15-16
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [3-4[
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : No
Place of exposure to French :
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Very Poor
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood : Lycée Bloc Deux
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : No
Close environment : Mostly Anglophones
Close environment1 : Mostly Francophones
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 50%; English: 50%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : The Francophones are not welcoming and they like speaking French a lot even if you
don't understand.
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : Cameroon is a bilingual country and I am a Cameroonian.
Self-confidence : I don’t care what people think
Acceptance of TE : Uncomfortable

106
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : These people are not welcoming and insultive.
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones/Mostly Francophones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 9

Age : 17-18
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis : Widikum
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [2-3[
Education before the crisis : Bilingual
Class : Form 2
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Very Poor
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood :
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 50%; English: 50%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC :
Perceived out-group attitude :
Attitude to French2 : Not more difficult than any other language
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 :
Self-confidence : At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French
Acceptance of TE : Happy
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) :
Self-rated level : A2
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Both (I can’t tell)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 10

Age : 15-16
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis : Bamenda
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [3-4[
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Poor
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood :
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
107
Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 70%; English: 20%; Other: 10%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC :
Perceived out-group attitude : Welcoming
Attitude to French2 : Easy to learn
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : I want to be bilingual
Self-confidence : At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French
Acceptance of TE : Can’t tell (Undecided)
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : I want to go back and see my grandparents. Also, the houses here are very expensive
and our house is there in Bamenda and no one is using it.
Self-rated level : A2
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Both (I can’t tell)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 11

Age : 15-16
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [3-4[
Education before the crisis : Bilingual
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Poor
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood :
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : No
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities :
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Slightly different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC :
Perceived out-group attitude : Very welcoming
Attitude to French2 : Not more difficult than any other language
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : I want to be bilingual and it is going to help me in the future in my job.
Self-confidence : At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French
Acceptance of TE : Can’t tell (Undecided)
Intended length of residence : Yes, I like it here
Intended length of residence (reason) :
Self-rated level : A2
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Both (I can’t tell)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESPONDENT 12

Age : 15-16

108
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis : Bamenda
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [4-5]
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Class 6
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Three times or more
Level of French before the crisis : Acceptable
Level of French now : Good
Neighbourhood : Behind SNEC
In-group density : None
Contact with out-group :
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities :
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : Where I lived there were very large markets compared to this one. My old town was
very clean but this one is very dirty.
Perceived out-group attitude : Indifferent
Attitude to French2 : Not more difficult than any other language
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : French is an official language that can help me in any life situation an even in my exams.
Self-confidence : I feel very confident
Acceptance of TE : Uncomfortable
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : The town is so dirty and noisy; the climate of this town changes the color of my skin
into black. Sickness upside down.
Self-rated level : B2
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Mostly Anglophones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 13

Age : 15-16
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis : Ndop
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [4-5]
Education before the crisis : Bilingual
Class : Class 6
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French :
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Once or twice
Level of French before the crisis : Poor
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood : Nylon
In-group density : None
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)
Participation in in-group activities : No
Language use in in-group activities :
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different

109
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : Mostly, people here are usually speaking only their tongue, and here you cannot
really find a good friend here.
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : When I get to university it coul help me in my subject/future.
Self-confidence : I don’t care what people think
Acceptance of TE : Uncomfortable
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : I feel uncomfortable here and I miss my family and my former school.
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Both (I can’t tell)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 14

Age : 15-16
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis : Buea
Region : South-West
Length of residence : [2-3[
Education before the crisis : Bilingual
Class : Class 5
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Three times or more
Level of French before the crisis : Acceptable
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood : Bamessingue
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Mostly Francophones
Close environment1 :
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 50%; English 50%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : They do practise tribalism
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Easy to learn
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : Many businesses in Cameroon use both English and French
Self-confidence : I feel very confident
Acceptance of TE : Happy
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : It is where I was born.
Self-rated level :
Close environment/Close environment1 :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 15

Age : 13-14
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis : Limbe
Region : South-West
Length of residence : [4-5]
Education before the crisis : Bilingual
Class : Form 2
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
110
Number of holidays outside in-group : Once or twice
Level of French before the crisis : Very Good
Level of French now : Very Good
Neighbourhood : Le Bien
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 :
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities :
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Similar
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : They are common because we study and help each other.
Perceived out-group attitude : Welcoming
Attitude to French2 : Not more difficult than any other language
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : I want to be bilingual, which will give me service interest and lead to sucess in the future and in my
exams.
Self-confidence : I feel very confident
Acceptance of TE : Happy
Intended length of residence : Yes, I like it here
Intended length of residence (reason) : The environment is lovely and comfortable
Self-rated level : B1
Close environment/Close environment1 :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 16

Age : 13-14
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : South-West
Length of residence : [0-1[
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 3
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Once or twice
Level of French before the crisis :
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood : Lafi
In-group density : Many
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 50%; English: 50%
Participation in in-group activities1 : Yes
Participation in in-group (Frequency) : Once a month
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : Their language, their way of speaking their languages, tribes and their way of doing
the activities and the way they dress.
Perceived out-group attitude : Indifferent
Attitude to French2 : Easy to learn
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : It is very important for our community and it is helpful and important for our future and ourselves
Self-confidence : At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French
Acceptance of TE : Homesick
Intended length of residence : Yes, I like it here

111
Intended length of residence (reason) : I want to learn more and finish my year here and focus on my studies.
Self-rated level : A2
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Both (I can’t tell)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 17

Age : 15-16
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : South-West
Length of residence : [3-4[
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Poor
Level of French now : Very Good
Neighbourhood : Nylon
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Mostly Anglophones
Close environment1 : Mostly Francophones
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 50%; English: 50%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : Their roads are different from ours, houses, markets are very different from ours.
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : French is an important language that will help me in the future.
Self-confidence : At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French
Acceptance of TE : Uncomfortable
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : There is discrimination and also Francophones don't want to see us even food
problems like to buy in the markets.
Self-rated level : A2
Close environment/Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones/Mostly Francophones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 18

Age : 15-16
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis : Mulun
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [4-5]
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : No
Place of exposure to French :
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Acceptable
Level of French now : Good
Neighbourhood :
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
112
Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)
Participation in in-group activities : No
Language use in in-group activities :
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : The neighbourhood. The language is different; the market is different.
Perceived out-group attitude : Indifferent
Attitude to French2 : Difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : Cameroon is a bilingual country and I have to lead it.
Self-confidence : At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French
Acceptance of TE : Uncomfortable
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) :
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Both (I can’t tell)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 19

Age : 13-14
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region :
Length of residence : [3-4[
Education before the crisis : Bilingual
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : Both
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Three times or more
Level of French before the crisis : Good
Level of French now : Good
Neighbourhood : Lycée Bloc Deux
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Mostly Francophones
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 50%; English: 50%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : The neighbourhood, the market, the school and the environment.
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Easy to learn
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : It is very important because it is good to be bilingual.
Self-confidence : I don’t care what people think
Acceptance of TE : Comfortable
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : My family miss me
Self-rated level : B2
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Mostly Francophones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESPONDENT 20

Age : 13-14
Sex : Male

113
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : South-West
Length of residence : [1-2[
Education before the crisis : Bilingual
Class : Form 2
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Once or twice
Level of French before the crisis : Good
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood : Prison
In-group density : Many
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 50%; English: 50%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : The people here are dirty, while in the SW they are clean and our area is clean and
organised.
Perceived out-group attitude : Indifferent
Attitude to French2 : Easy to learn
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : Cameroon is bilingual and I need to know French and English.
Self-confidence : I don’t care what people think
Acceptance of TE : Uncomfortable
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : I would like to meet with my friends ad family there.
Self-rated level : A2
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Both (I can’t tell)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 21

Age : 15-16
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : South-West
Length of residence : [3-4[
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : In the street
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Once or twice
Level of French before the crisis : Acceptable
Level of French now : Good
Neighbourhood : Bamessingue
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 25%; English: 75%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Slightly different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : Houses, job center, schools, hospital are common.
Perceived out-group attitude : Welcoming

114
Attitude to French2 : Difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : Our country is bilingual and we have to speak both English and French.
Self-confidence : I feel very confident
Acceptance of TE : Comfortable
Intended length of residence : Yes, I like it here
Intended length of residence (reason) : I already have good friends here and living in both Francophone or Anglophone cities
or towns is very good and comfortable. We are one and indivisible.
Self-rated level : A2
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Both (I can’t tell)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 22

Age : 13-14
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : South-West
Length of residence : [4-5]
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : No
Place of exposure to French :
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Acceptable
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood : Bamesso
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 20%; English: 50%; Other: 40%
Participation in in-group activities1 : Yes
Participation in in-group (Frequency) : Once a month
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : The neighbourhood have changed, the languages have changed, the markets have
changed, and people are very kind in this city.
Perceived out-group attitude : Indifferent
Attitude to French2 : Difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : It will help in the future and it is one of the official language in my country.
Self-confidence : I don’t care what people think
Acceptance of TE : Can’t tell (Undecided)
Intended length of residence : Yes, I like it here
Intended length of residence (reason) : I want to learn more about their culture and language and also French.
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Both (I can’t tell)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 23

Age : 15-16
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : South-West
Length of residence : [0-1[
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Once or twice
115
Level of French before the crisis : Acceptable
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood : Street Jahova
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Mostly Francophones
Close environment1 :
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 50%; English: 50%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : Language is very different and some people are very nice in speaking French at
times when you go to the market to buy because they can't understand English.
Perceived out-group attitude :
Attitude to French2 : Easy to learn
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : It is very important in our society because it can also help in our examination in the future to come even
in the university.
Self-confidence : At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French
Acceptance of TE : Homesick
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : This place is not like our region there is also difficulties in school, foods, etc.
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 24

Age : 17-18
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [3-4[
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : In the street
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Once or twice
Level of French before the crisis : Poor
Level of French now : Poor
Neighbourhood : Caplabame
In-group density : Many
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Mostly Anglophones
Close environment1 :
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities :
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Slightly different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : The way they mock at the Anglophones when they speak French.
Perceived out-group attitude : Welcoming
Attitude to French2 : Difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 :
Self-confidence : I don’t care what people think
Acceptance of TE : Can’t tell (Undecided)
Intended length of residence : Yes, I like it here
Intended length of residence (reason) : Before I leave this place I must know how to speak it well so I can teach my people

116
when I am back to my hometown.
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 25

Age : 15-16
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis : Menchum Division
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [4-5]
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Class 6
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : Both
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Poor
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood :
In-group density : Many
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 95%; English: 5%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : Their language is different; they are wicked; they sell things at higher prices.
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : I am in Cameroon and Cameroon is a bilingual country.
Self-confidence : I don’t care what people think
Acceptance of TE : Homesick
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : I am very uncomfortable here.
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Mostly Anglophones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 26

Age : 13-14
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis : Bamenda
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [3-4[
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : No
Place of exposure to French :
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Once or twice
Level of French before the crisis : Poor
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood : Bamessingue
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : No
Close environment : Mostly Anglophones
Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones
117
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : English: 100%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Slightly different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : They often speak French and when we come close to them to speak English? They
won't understand us.
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Very difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I dislike it
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : Most often when I speak wrong French they would mock at me publicly and call me a Bamenda girl.
Self-confidence : At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French
Acceptance of TE : Uncomfortable
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : Bamenda is my hometown and my parents live there and I have friends to go and
meet there.
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones/Mostly Anglophones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 27

Age : 15-16
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis : Bamenda
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [2-3[
Education before the crisis : Bilingual
Class : Form 2
Exposure to French before the crisis : No
Place of exposure to French :
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Very Good
Level of French now : Very Good
Neighbourhood :
In-group density : Many
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Mostly Francophones
Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 90%; English: 10%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : Language are common. The way they do their things is very common from the way
we usually do our own.
Perceived out-group attitude : Indifferent
Attitude to French2 : Easy to learn
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : I am from a bilingual country, that is why I need to learn French very well.
Self-confidence : I don’t care what people think
Acceptance of TE : Uncomfortable
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : Bamenda is a good town to live.
Self-rated level : A2
Close environment/Close environment1 : Mostly Francophones/Mostly Anglophones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 28

Age : 13-14
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis :
118
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [4-5]
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Class 5
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Three times or more
Level of French before the crisis : Very Good
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood : Texaco
In-group density : None
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Mostly Francophones
Close environment1 :
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities :
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC :
Perceived out-group attitude : Welcoming
Attitude to French2 : Easy to learn
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 :
Self-confidence : I don’t care what people think
Acceptance of TE : Happy
Intended length of residence : Yes, I like it here
Intended length of residence (reason) :
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 29

Age : 15-16
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : South-West
Length of residence : [3-4[
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : No
Place of exposure to French :
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Once or twice
Level of French before the crisis : Poor
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood :
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Mostly Anglophones
Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones
Participation in in-group activities : No
Language use in in-group activities :
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Slightly different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC :
Perceived out-group attitude : Welcoming
Attitude to French2 : Very difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.

119
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : Cameroon is a bilingual country so I want to speak the two official languages in my country.
Self-confidence : At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French
Acceptance of TE : Happy
Intended length of residence : Yes, I like it here
Intended length of residence (reason) : I am already used to living here and my parents are not that far from us; so I am ready
to finish my secondary school here in Mbouda.
Self-rated level : B1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones/Mostly Anglophones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 30

Age : 15-16
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [4-5]
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 1
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : In the street
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group : Once or twice
Level of French before the crisis : Good
Level of French now : Very Good
Neighbourhood : Nylon
In-group density : Many
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Mostly Francophones
Participation in in-group activities : No
Language use in in-group activities :
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC :
Perceived out-group attitude : Welcoming
Attitude to French2 : Not more difficult than any other language
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : In the future, it can help me in some situations.
Self-confidence : I don’t care what people think
Acceptance of TE : Can’t tell (Undecided)
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : It is easy to forget all my friends and all that I learned from them.
Self-rated level : A2
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Mostly Francophones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 31

Age : 15-16
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis : Mbengwi
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [4-5]
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Class 6
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : Both
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Three times or more
Level of French before the crisis : Very Good
Level of French now : Very Good
Neighbourhood : Bamessingue
120
In-group density : Many
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 :
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 30%; English: 70%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : They don't greet pupils and they are selfish.
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Easy to learn
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : I am in a region where they speak French.
Self-confidence : I don’t care what people think
Acceptance of TE : Happy
Intended length of residence : Yes, I like it here
Intended length of residence (reason) :
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 32

Age : 17-18
Sex :
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [2-3[
Education before the crisis : Bilingual
Class : Form 3
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : Both
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group : Three times or more
Level of French before the crisis : Acceptable
Level of French now : Good
Neighbourhood : Babadjou
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Mostly Anglophones
Close environment1 :
Participation in in-group activities : No
Language use in in-group activities :
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Slightly different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : Houses, roads, school, language.
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Not more difficult than any other language
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : Nowadays we have to be bilingual to be better citizens.
Self-confidence : At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French
Acceptance of TE : Can’t tell (Undecided)
Intended length of residence : Yes, I like it here
Intended length of residence (reason) : I have created new relationships and we are like a family now.
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 33

121
Age : 17-18
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis : Buea
Region : South-West
Length of residence : [1-2[
Education before the crisis : Bilingual
Class :
Exposure to French before the crisis : No
Place of exposure to French :
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Very Poor
Level of French now : Good
Neighbourhood : Bamessingue
In-group density : Many
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Mostly Anglophones
Close environment1 : Mostly Francophones
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : English: 50%
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : The language is different
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Easy to learn
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : I am in (the) French zone. I need to learn more languages because Cameroon is a bilingual country.
Self-confidence : I feel very confident
Acceptance of TE : Can’t tell (Undecided)
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : People here don't behave like us; they increase house rent and we don't have
resources here to earn money; we find things difficult, food, money, home.
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones/Mostly Francophones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 34

Age : 21-22
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis : Bamenda
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [4-5]
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 2
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Three times or more
Level of French before the crisis : Very Good
Level of French now : Very Good
Neighbourhood : Banock
In-group density : Many
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment :
Close environment1 : Mostly Francophones
Participation in in-group activities : No
Language use in in-group activities :
Participation in in-group activities1 : No
Participation in in-group (Frequency) :

122
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : The Francophones usually insult Anglophones and mock at them when they make a
mistake in French.
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Easy to learn
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : Cameroon laws says people who live in Cameroon must speak French and English
Self-confidence : I don’t care what people think
Acceptance of TE : Can’t tell (Undecided)
Intended length of residence : Yes, I like it here
Intended length of residence (reason) : After the crisis some people may decide and make gangs of thieves because there are
so many guns that are lost i the bushes so there will be kidnaping in NW and SW.
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 35

Age : 17-18
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : South-West
Length of residence : [0-1[
Education before the crisis : Bilingual
Class :
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Once or twice
Level of French before the crisis : Good
Level of French now : Good
Neighbourhood : Broder
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Mostly Anglophones
Close environment1 :
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 75%; English: 25%
Participation in in-group activities1 : Yes
Participation in in-group (Frequency) : Once every two weeks
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : They are not living in society and much disturbance
Perceived out-group attitude : Welcoming
Attitude to French2 : Easy to learn
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : I don't have difficulty to speak the language.
Self-confidence : I feel very confident
Acceptance of TE : Can’t tell (Undecided)
Intended length of residence : Yes, I like it here
Intended length of residence (reason) : I like this
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 36

Age : 15-16
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [4-5]
Education before the crisis : Bilingual
Class : Class 6
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
123
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Good
Level of French now : Good
Neighbourhood : Bamessingue
In-group density : Many
Contact with out-group : Together
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Mostly Francophones
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities :
Participation in in-group activities1 : Yes
Participation in in-group (Frequency) : Every week
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Similar
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : Houses, schools, language, behaviour
Perceived out-group attitude : Very welcoming
Attitude to French2 : Easy to learn
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : It may help me succeed in my exams
Self-confidence : I feel very confident
Acceptance of TE : Homesick
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) :
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Mostly Francophones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 37

Age : 15-16
Sex : Female
Place of residence before the crisis :
Region : South-West
Length of residence : [3-4[
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class :
Exposure to French before the crisis : No
Place of exposure to French :
Holidays in a French-speaking area : Yes
Number of holidays outside in-group : Three times or more
Level of French before the crisis : Acceptable
Level of French now : Acceptable
Neighbourhood : Bamiboro
In-group density : Few
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Both (I can’t tell)
Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities :
Participation in in-group activities1 : Yes
Participation in in-group (Frequency) : Once a month
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : People are very beautiful and the market is not very nice but very big and sell many
things
Perceived out-group attitude : Welcoming
Attitude to French2 : Difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I enjoy it, it’s a plus to me.
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : French is one of the official languages and it will help me in the future.
Self-confidence : I don’t care what people think
Acceptance of TE : Homesick

124
Intended length of residence :
Intended length of residence (reason) :
Self-rated level : A2
Close environment/Close environment1 : Both (I can’t tell)/Both (I can’t tell)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONDENT 38

Age : 15-16
Sex : Male
Place of residence before the crisis : Bamenda
Region : North-West
Length of residence : [4-5]
Education before the crisis : Anglophone
Class : Form 2
Exposure to French before the crisis : Yes
Place of exposure to French : At school
Holidays in a French-speaking area : No
Number of holidays outside in-group :
Level of French before the crisis : Very Poor
Level of French now : Good
Neighbourhood : Caplabame
In-group density : Many
Contact with out-group : Separately
Type of education now : Bilingual
Involvement with the out-group : Yes
Close environment : Mostly Anglophones
Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones
Participation in in-group activities : Yes
Language use in in-group activities : French: 60%; English: 40%; Other: 10%
Participation in in-group activities1 : Yes
Participation in in-group (Frequency) : Once a month
Distance btw Source and Target cultures : Very different
Similarities/Differences btw SC and TC : The way of living
Perceived out-group attitude : Unwelcoming
Attitude to French2 : Difficult to learn
Attitude to French1 : I have to, I don’t have a choice
Attitude to French : Yes
Attitude to French3 : I want to teach my brother to speak French.
Self-confidence : At times I’m afraid people will laugh at my French
Acceptance of TE : Homesick
Intended length of residence : No, as soon as the crisis is over, I wish to go back to NW/SW.
Intended length of residence (reason) : I don't feel at home here.
Self-rated level : A1
Close environment/Close environment1 : Mostly Anglophones/Mostly Anglophones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

125