Volume 07 Issue 10 October 2024
Nguyen Vy Ngọc
Dai Nam University, Hanoi, Vietnam
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v7-i10-53Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the cognitive and linguistic differences in second language acquisition (SLA) among multilingual H'mong and Tay students compared to monolingual Kinh students in Vietnam. Using a mixed-methods approach, the study examined cognitive proficiency, including working memory and cognitive flexibility, as well as linguistic proficiency in English, focusing on vocabulary size, syntactic knowledge, and phonological accuracy. Quantitative data from cognitive and linguistic tests were analyzed using MANOVA, while qualitative data from focus group discussions provided insights into the sociocultural influences on language learning. The findings reveal that H'mong and Tay students exhibited higher cognitive proficiency, particularly in working memory and cognitive flexibility, than their monolingual Kinh peers. However, despite their cognitive advantages, multilingual students faced greater challenges in English vocabulary acquisition, syntax, and phonological accuracy, likely due to structural differences between their native languages and English. The qualitative findings highlight the role of sociocultural factors, including limited access to resources and the desire to maintain cultural identity, in shaping language learning experiences among ethnic minority students. The study concludes that while multilingualism enhances cognitive abilities, ethnic minority students require targeted instructional support to overcome linguistic barriers in SLA. The findings have implications for language education policies, particularly in designing culturally sensitive curricula and improving access to quality English education in rural and ethnic minority communities.
KEYWORDS:Multilingualism, Second Language Acquisition, Ethnic Minority Learners, H'mong, Tay, Cognitive Proficiency, Linguistic Proficiency
REFERENCES1) Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 207-245.
2) Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 3-11.
3) Cenoz, J. (2013). The influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition: Focus on multilingualism. Language Teaching, 46(1), 71-86.
4) Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.
5) Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Palgrave Macmillan.
6) Hamid, M. O., & Nguyen, H. T. M. (2016). English medium instruction and self-governance in higher education: A tale from two countries. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(3), 501-514.
7) Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language. Edinburgh University Press.
8) Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford University Press.
9) Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Newbury House.
10) Nguyen, H. T. M., & Burns, A. (2017). Teacher education for multilingual contexts: Experiences from Vietnam. International Journal of Educational Development, 54, 48-59.
11) Nguyen, T. T. H. (2011). Teaching English in Vietnam: Improving the provision in the context of globalisation. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(1), 53-65.
12) Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662.
13) Vu, L. T., & Burns, A. (2014). Vietnamese learners’ acquisition of English as an additional language: Case studies of H'mong students. Language Learning Journal, 42(3), 261-275.
14) Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV). Pearson.
