Predictors of immigrants’ second-language proficiency: a Dutch study of immigrants with a low level of societal participation and second-language proficiency

Abstract

This article examines the predictors of second-language proficiency for a group that until now has hardly been investigated: immigrants who rarely participate in the host society and who have a low level of second-language proficiency (sample characteristics are for example: no paid job, low educational and literacy level, high mean age and number of years since migration). In contrast with earlier research, not only self-assessments were used as indicator for second-language proficiency, but also language test scores. Results from a sample of 624 immigrants partly replicate findings from earlier studies: self-assessed second-language proficiency is higher among immigrants who have followed a language course, do voluntary work, have a high educational level, high mother-tongue proficiency, a low migration age, and a large number of years since migration. No links, however, were found between having psychological problems, gender, and migration motive and self-assessed second-language proficiency. Furthermore, some new predictors of self-assessed second-language proficiency were identified, namely similarity in alphabet between mother tongue and second language, daily interactions with natives in the public domain, and speaking the second language at home. For a subsample (N=98) second-language proficiency was also assessed via (objective) lexicon tests. When using scores on this test as dependent variables, only years since migration turned out to be a significant predictor. Though certainly tentative, this finding indicates that different predictors of second-language proficiency may apply depending on how it has been measured.

Psychological individual differences as predictors of refugees’ local language proficiency

“…The findings showed that local language proficiency levels were about similar for men and women, but higher among refugees who were younger, who had a longer length of stay in the Netherlands, who had a higher premigration education level, and who experienced lower levels of psychological distress. The latter finding is especially important, as some earlier studies did not find a negative link between psychological distress and local language acquisition among immigrants (Van Niejenhuis et al., ; Van Tubergen, ). This could possibly be explained by our use of more reliable and valid instruments of psychological distress and language proficiency.…”

“…Despite some exceptions (Van Niejenhuis et al., ; Van Tubergen, ), most previous research findings revealed a negative effect of psychological distress on local language proficiency (Beiser & Hou, ; Chiswick & Miller, ; Van Tubergen & Kalmijn, ). Psychological distress was measured with the 10‐item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10; Kessler et al., ).…”

“…Despite some exceptions (Van Niejenhuis et al, 2015;Van Tubergen, 2010), most previous research findings revealed a negative effect of psychological distress on local language proficiency (Beiser & Hou, 2001;Chiswick & Miller, 2001;Van Tubergen & Kalmijn, 2005).…”

“…Based on this model, a number of sociodemographic predictors of local language acquisition have been identified, including gender (e.g., Beiser & Hou, 2000;Kristen, Mühlau, & Schacht, 2016;Van der Slik, Van Hout, & Schepens, 2015), length of stay in the country of residence (e.g., Carliner, 2000;Van Tubergen & Kalmijn, 2005), age of arrival (e.g., Kristen et al, 2016), and premigration education level (Beiser & Hou, 2000;Hayfron, 2001;Hou & Beiser, 2006;Van Tubergen, 2010). Mental health has also been studied often among immigrants and refugees (e.g., see Fazel et al, 2005;Porter & Haslam, 2005), and good mental health has frequently been associated with better local language acquisition (Beiser & Hou, 2001;Chiswick & Miller, 2001;Van Tubergen & Kalmijn, 2005; for exceptions, see Van Niejenhuis, Van der Werf, & Otten, 2015;Van Tubergen, 2010). Although these findings are informative, we argue that this literature fails to recognize that psychological and individual differences-in addition to situational and external factors-could also influence local language acquisition among migrants (Dörnyei, 2005).…”

“…Some studies reported greater local language proficiency among female immigrants (e.g., Van der Slik et al, 2015), whereas other studies reported greater levels of local language proficiency among male immigrants (e.g., Beiser & Hou, 2001;Dustmann & Fabbri, 2003;Fennelly & Palasz, 2003;Van Tubergen, 2010), or showed no gender differences (e.g., Van Niejenhuis et al, 2015). Previous research has shown that local language proficiency among immigrants is negatively associated with age of arrival in the country of residence (e.g., Kristen et al, 2016), and positively associated with local length of stay (Carliner, 2000;Van Tubergen & Kalmijn, 2005) and premigration education level (Beiser & Hou, 2000;Hayfron, 2001;Hou & Beiser, 2006;Van Tubergen, 2010).…”