The topic of competence in more than one language is large and complex; because it is both an individual and a societal phenomenon it has an extensive literature within sociolinguistics and the sociology of language.
The issue of language in education at the turn of the millennium remains heavily contested. Argument which is directed against bilingual education is not new. An examination of education shows the strenge way in which history repeats itself. More than sixty years ago Malherbe complained about the way in which the detractors of bilingual education then made claims about the educational advantages of what were known as unilingual schools despite comprehensive evidence which demonstrated the linguistic, academic and social advantages of bilingual schools. Malherbe’s observations then are equally applicable today:
“Unfortunately, most of these claims are made on a priori grounds and are not backed by objective data or scientific proof. In fact, the vehemence with which they are propounded is generally in inverse proportion to the amount of scientifically reliable data which can be adduced in support of these views. Assertion alone does not necessarily verify a statement (Malherbe 1943: 38).”
The failure of language and educational policy where the two are not closely inter-related in multilingual settings is legendary. International research and experience shows conclusively that no language policy will ever succeed unless an accompanying plan is implemented; neither will it succeed if there is an accompanying plan which is at variance with the goals (see for example Akinnaso 1991:29–61). Furthermore, a language in education policy will not succeed unless it is integrated with and in synchrony with the national education policy and plan (or a new curriculum). Chumbow asserts, further, that the place of language planning is within the ‘National Development Plan’ (1987:22).
Approaching bilingualism and multilingualism from a communication perspective sheds light on a phenomenon which otherwise would appear static and asocial. Merriam-Webster’s online thesaurus defines bilingualism as ‘the ability to speak two languages: the frequent oral use of two languages’ and multilingual as ‘of, containing, or expressed in several languages’ and ‘using or able to use several languages’. The apparent simplicity of these definitions is, however, deceiving for a number of reasons. First, they fail to make the distinction between bilingualism as a collective characteristic defining nations and bilingualism as a person’s competence in one or more languages. As we will see below, that distinction is crucial to our understanding of bilingualism as the product of the interplay between individuals and their context.
Second, defining bilingualism at a national level entails, in itself, a number of difficulties. Since there are approximately 5000 languages distributed in 200 countries, most would be characterized by a state of relative bilingualism.
The third set of definitional problems is related to individual bilingualism or bilinguality (Hamers and Blanc 2000). A bilingual person could be the one that can speak two languages perfectly. Others would, however suggest that even a minimal knowledge of both languages is enough to qualify as a bilingual.
The following elaborates on each of the questions raised by these definitional problems. To be sure though, when speaking of bi- or multilingualism, we not only speak of languages in contact, but also of the people from varied cultural origins using these languages. Bilingualism is, therefore, an intercultural communication (IC) phenomenon (Acculturation Processes and Communication). While bilingualism and multilingualism have not been themes exploited in the literature on IC (cf. Gudykunst & Mody 2002).
Researchers of language acquisition have tended to focus their efforts on questions like how the process of language learning differs for bilinguals and monolinguals. The debate over bilingualism has been framed too often in terms of its potentially damaging effect upon children’s educational outcomes.
Any adverse impact of bilingualism certainly must be balanced against potential benefits. Some studies indicate that bilinguals demonstrate a clear advantage in cognitive and conceptual processing, as well as in controlled attention skills. The ability of bilinguals to think in more than one language raises interesting conceptual questions about whether bilingualism actually promotes added mental flexibility and creates a deeper reservoir of intellectual “capacity.”
In trying to understand the bilingualism and multilingualism, I will focus on: What is the bilingualism and multilingualism?, what is the circumstance that led to his/her bilingualism and multilingualism?, and what is the potential and effects of bilingualism and multilingualism in education?
2. BILINGUALISM
A bilingual individual, generally, is someone who speaks two languages. An ideal or balanced bilingual speaks each language as proficiently as an educated native speaker. This is often referred to as an ideal type since few people are regarded as being able to reach this standard. Otherwise, a bilingual may be anywhere on a continuum of skills.
a. The Definition of Bilingualism
For all students, it is important to see that researchers use a wide variety of definitions of individual bilingualism. There are very strict and very demanding psycholinguistic definitions, such as Bloomfield's (1933) claim that a bilingual should possess "native-like control of two or more languages". Others, such as Weinreich (1953) and Grosjean (1997) propose definitions that are based on language use rather than language competence. Before showing students the range of definitions of bilingualism, it can be very helpful to ask them to formulate their own definition in writing. Students can subsequently collect these definitions and discuss them in class. This often leads students to formulate very original views on the issue and it generates an interest in the definitions given by the experts in the field, which are to be presented and discussed subsequently.
b. Bilinguality
Acquiring and using a language other than the first language learned is a matter of fact in most areas of the world. A distinction is usually made between simultaneous and successive bilingualism. In the first case, both languages are acquired simultaneously whereas in the second case, the second language is acquired later in life. The first description of simultaneous bilingualism is attributed to Ronjat (1913) who observed the linguistic development (in French and German) of his son Louis from birth to age 4. Ronjat concluded positively about the development of his son. Since then, numerous studies have been made of simultaneous bilingualism and generally confirm what the early studies found: children developing both languages simultaneously from an early age are able to differentiate their languages at an early stage and are not at any disadvantage in terms of language acquisition compared to their monolingual peers. It is important to note, however, that achieving such a state of ‘balanced bilingualism’ is subject to the existence of contextual factors favoring the equal status of the languages, their equal valuing by the parents, the availability of a language community for each languages as well as individual factors such as positive attitudes toward bilingualism and the languages.
These factors are also present, under other labels in numerous IC theories. The importance of a network representing each language is expressed in Kim’s (1986) representation of the relation between second language (L2) competence and individual communication networks. Specifically, she relates network heterogeneity and the relative importance of outgroup members in the network to the achievement of outgroup communicative competence (Communication Networks).
The factors affecting successive bilingualism (the acquisition of L2 after L1 has been established) are by and large identical to those affecting simultaneous bilingualism. Research results underline the importance of such factors as linguistic aptitude, learning strategies and personality factors such as introversion. These aspects find little correspondence in the IC literature. Pioneering work on the question of motivation does, however, cross many of the IC paths. Gardner and Lambert (1972) originally proposed that motivation is, with linguistic aptitude, the factor determining L2 competence. They further showed that L2 motivation was closely linked to attitude toward the L2 community and an interest in becoming similar to valued members of that group, a tendency which they labeled ‘integrativeness’. Originally aimed at describing the Canadian situation, over three decades of research have shown that L2 motivation, as affectively based in intergroup attitudes, is a determining factor in L2 competence in numerous settings across the world. And this connects with aspects of the IC theories described above. Since the original research, many alternative motivational models have been created (Clément & Gardner 2001). In all cases, however, the affective basis of the motivation is linked to contextual factors (Language Attitudes in Intergroup Contexts).
Besides intergroup attitudes, the more recent literature has supported the importance of L2 confidence as a determinant of L2 behavior and competence. L2 confidence corresponds to the belief in being able to react adaptively to situations involving the use of a second language. It is related to positive self-ratings of competence and a lack of anxiety when using the second language (Clément 1980). It originates from situations where contact with the L2 community is both frequent and pleasant. Thus, while positive attitudes may orient the individual towards the L2 community, intercultural contact generates the confidence required for L2 interaction and, in so doing, promotes L2 competence as well as other aspects as well as others consequences of L2 acquisition to be discussed below (MacIntyre et al. 1998).
c. Societal Bilingualism
Many descriptions of bilinguality may convey the impression that the phenomenon is individually based or at, best, relevant to dyadic interactions. The above reference to the attitudinal context of bilingual development and L2 acquisition, however, situates it at the intersection of individual and societal processes. This question has, therefore, come to be a key issue for government authorities in a number of countries. Language planning has been the political and administrative instrument used to promote and protect languages according to predetermined societal options. Accordingly, the State may determine the goals of language education, the medium of interaction with government agencies, tribunals and schools, and the relative visibility of different languages in public and commercial signs – the linguistic landscape. These actions are often premised on the idea that a minority situation will not only entail the loss of L1 but may also result in the disappearance of entire cultural groups.
Under the concepts of additive and subtractive bilingualism, Lambert (1978) proposed that language learning outcomes could be very different for members of majority and minority groups. Notably, subtractive bilingualism would refer to a situation where members of a minority group would come to loose their first language as a result of learning the second one. Additive bilingualism, on the other hand, refers to situations where members of a majority group acquire L2 without losing L1. This notion of relative group status was subsequently formalized by Giles et al. (1977) under the concept of ethnolinguistic vitality (Ethnolinguistic Vitality and Communication) which encompasses demographic representation of the communities, their institutional representation and the socio-economic status of their members. Ethnolinguistic vitality is linked to a family of language phenomena and the results obtained to date show a consistent relation between these structural factors and first language retention and competence among minority group members.
These aspects find an echo in Kim’s (2005) contextual theory of interethnic communication. Accordingly, language behavior is described along and associative dissociative continuum controlled by various aspects of the communicator, the situation and the environment. Associative verbal behavior would correspond to attempts at modulating messages adjusted to one’s interlocutor whereas dissociative verbal behavior would seek to establish communicative distance. Although no mention is made explicitly of one’s usage of a L2 to accommodate the interlocutor, that type of behavior would be considered to be associative. Kim’s theory also describes the environment in terms of institutional equity, relative in-group strength and environmental stress, all factors describing aspect of the context likely to influence associative/dissociative behavior, in a manner that is consistent with ethno linguistic vitality theory.
d. Social and Cognitive Consequences
A relevant issue here is the idea that positive benefits from L2 acquisition and usage will only be achieved to the extent that the first language and culture are well established within the individual (Clément 1980; Hamers & Blanc 2000). This presupposes a familial, educational, and social context which allows the development and transmission of the first language and culture. Although such conditions may be present for majority group members, they may not characterize the situation of minority group members, immigrants, refugees, and sojourners. The relative status of the first and second language speaking groups and the linguistic composition of the community are here key determinants of the linguistic and cultural outcomes of second language acquisition.
Specifically, as suggested by identity-based IC theories (Gudykunst & Mody, 2002), there is an intimate link between communicative processes and individual identity. To the extent that the context brings about a loss of the first language, it will also bring about a loss of the first cultural identity. Noels and Clément (1996) have in fact shown this to be the case among minority group members but not among majority group members. The systemic relationships between societal conditions, and language loss, therefore, risk bringing about results that are opposite to the intended goal of bilingualism programs.
A similar argument may be proposed as concerns cognitive consequences of bilingualism. It was originally thought that bilingualism would produce negative consequences for cognitive functioning. The study by Peal and Lambert (1962), however, showed that the bilinguals scored higher than monolinguals on verbal and non-verbal intelligence tests and showed a more diversified intelligence structure. According to these authors, bilinguals have the ability to manipulate two symbolic systems and thus analyze semantic features in greater detail. Subsequent studies have resulted in the conclusion that bilinguals have greater metalinguistic awareness and cognitive flexibility, that is, they are better able to distinguish the symbol from its specific meaning which gives them an advantage in most school-type cognitive abilities.
According to Hamers and Blanc’s (2000) sociocultural interdependence hypothesis, positive cognitive outcomes will result only in situations where both the first and second languages are valued. In conclusion, the picture emerging, whether taken from the perspective of IC theories or from the point of view of theories dealing specifically with bilingualism and bilinguality show a phenomenon that is tightly interwoven with social factors pertaining to the community at hand. Whereas IC theories are generally formulated in more abstract terms than bilingualism theories, they do not cover some specific aspects, such as linguistic and cultural attrition or cognitive enhancements, which have been the prime focus of interest in societies valuing cultural diversity. In either camp, most theories attempt, however, to explain these phenomena through complex multi-tiered mechanisms. They vary in emphasis and epistemological style but none of them makes predictions that are diametrically opposite to the others.
e. Cognitive advantage to Bilingualism
(1) Old Misconception
Early research suggested that learning two languages in childhood was detrimental to a child's cognitive abilities. This was due to the idea that the two languages were learned independently and the knowledge of learning one did not transfer into the other. It was thought that as more was learned in one language, less could be learned in the other. This gives the idea of there being a total amount of language acquisition, and so the pieces learned in each language together have to add up to this total. For this reason parents and teachers tried to force children to only learn one language instead of cultivating the ability to learn both.
The consensus among linguists, as well as the general public today, however, is leaning towards the opposite; the idea that knowledge in the two languages would be kept separate instead of influencing each other is rejected as irrational by many. For example, a child who has learned the concept of adding and subtracting in one language would not need to re-learn the concept in another language. By that same token, a child who has learned to recognize that spoken language can be broken up into words, which can be represented in writing in one language, is not going to need to be re-taught the idea of writing representing spoken language.
(2) Enhancing effects in Children
When a child is fluent in two languages, they know more than one word for the same object or concept. Current research leads to the belief that this can add to the cognitive flexibility of the child. The different connotations and ideas around a word has in the different languages the child knows allows the child to build a more complex understanding of the word at a younger age.
In the book In Other Words by Ellen Bialystok and Kenji Hakuta (1994), the authors talk about the idea that "the knowledge of two languages is greater than the sum of its parts." Basically the idea they are striving towards is that the benefits from being bilingual go much further than simply knowing two languages. Because the structures and ideas of the two languages are so different it forces the child to think in more complicated ways than if they were learning only one language. Among the benefits of language acquisition is the increase of metalinguistic awareness, that is, a greater sensitivity to language in general and a greater awareness of meaning and structure in language. One reason this is speculated to be true is that multilingual children receive more linguistic input, requiring a greater amount of language analysis on the part of the child.
On the other hand, Cummins suggested that if L1 (first language learned) has not reached a certain threshold of competence, the child may develop "semi-lingualism" or "limited bilingualism", a situation of lower linguistic competence in the various languages acquired, in comparison to monolingual children.(Jim Cummins:1979). Thus, while bilingualism has generally been considered to be of cognitive benefit, some studies suggest that it may have negative effects on cognitive and academic progress. According to Cummins, it is possible to explain "the negative results of these studies as being associated with linguistic minorities, where the minority language was being replaced in some sense by the socially dominant one, while the studies that found a positive effect were associated with 'additive bilingualism,' a situation in which majority-language children acquire a second language."[4] The controversy concerning the impact of multilingualism on children is ongoing, with many researchers criticizing the very notion of "semi-lingualism". The lower linguistic skills of some children can in many cases be attributed, not to the simultaneous acquisition of several languages, but to the impact of further, especially social and economic, factors.
(3) Inhibitory control
A study done by Ellen Bialystok and Michelle Martin (2005) showed that bilingual children have better inhibitory control for ignoring perceptual information. The theory is that children who are bilingual are constantly sorting out extra perceptual information. For every object and action they have two words, one in each language, they could use. However, they need to choose which one to use based on the context they are in and the rules that apply to that context. This ability enhances the ability of bilinguals to selectively pay attention to appropriate information and inhibit focusing on other information. Through a card sort task, this research showed that this does seem to be the case.
(4) Impact on literacy
A study done by Ellen Bialystok, Gigi Luk and Ernest Kwan (2005) showed the impact of knowing one language and writing system on learning another. They compared a group of monolinguals and three groups of bilinguals, with different relationships between English and the second language: for Spanish-English bilinguals the languages are similar and they are both written alphabetically in the same script, for Hebrew-English bilinguals the languages are different but they are both written alphabetically (phonetic Hebrew) in different scripts, for Chinese-English bilinguals both the language and the writing system are different.
The results showed that Spanish-English and Hebrew-English biliterates had the highest levels of literacy. Their interpretation of the results is that bilingualism has two effects on early acquisition of literacy: (1) a general understanding of reading and its basis in a print system and (2) the potential for transfer of reading principles across languages. All bilinguals showed an advantage in these areas over monolinguals, but the more similar the two languages the larger the advantage.
e. Bilingual education
Bilingual education involves teaching academic content in two languages, in a native and secondary language with varying amounts of each language used in accordance with the program model. The following are several different types of bilingual education program models:
§ Transitional Bilingual Education. This involves education in a child's native language, typically for no more than three years, to ensure that students do not fall behind in content areas like math, science, and social studies while they are learning English. The goal is to help students transition to mainstream, English-only classrooms as quickly as possible, and the linguistic goal of such programs is English acquisition only.
§ Two-Way or Dual Language Immersion Bilingual Education. These programs are designed to help native and non-native English speakers become bilingual and biliterate. Ideally in such programs in a U.S. context, half of the students will be native speakers of English and half of the students will be native speakers of a minority language such as Spanish. Dual Language programs are less common in US schools, although research indicates they are extremely effective in helping students learn English well and aiding the long-term performance of English learners in school. Native English speakers benefit by learning a second language. English language learners (ELLs) are not segregated from their peers.
§ Another form of Bilingual Education is a type of Dual Language program that has students study in two different ways: 1) A variety of academic subjects are taught in the students' second language, with specially trained bilingual teachers who can understand students when they ask questions in their native language, but always answer in the second language; and 2) Native language literacy classes improve students' writing and higher-order language skills in their first language. Research has shown that many of the skills learned in the native language can be transferred easily to the second language later. In this type of program, the native language classes do not teach academic subjects. The second-language classes are content-based, rather than grammar-based, so students learn all of their academic subjects in the second language.
§ Late-Exit or Developmental Bilingual Education. Education is in the child's native language for an extended duration, accompanied by education in English. The goal is to develop literacy in the child's native language first, and transfer these skills to the second language.
3. MULTILINGUALISM
Multilingualism as used in this report is to be understood within the framework of European Commission documentation: … the ability of societies, institutions, groups and individuals to engage, on a regular basis, with more than one language in their day-to-day lives. (EC 2007:6)
This broad definition embraces the distinction made by the Council of Europe between ‘multilingualism’ and ‘plurilingualism’, where multilingualism refers more to social organization, and plurilingualism to an individual repertoire of linguistic competence. Multilingualism refers here exclusively to the presence of several languages in a given space, independently of those who use them: for example, the fact that two languages are present in the same geographical area does not indicate whether inhabitants know both (Council of Europe: 2007a:17)
Multilingualism is the act of using, or promoting the use of, multiple languages, either by an individual speaker or by a community of speakers. Multilingual speakers outnumber monolingual speakers in the world's population.[1] The generic term for a multilingual person is polyglot.[2] Multilingualism is becoming a social phenomenon governed by the needs of globalization and cultural openness.[3]Thanks to the ease of access to information facilitated by the Internet, individuals' exposure to multiple languages is getting more and more frequent, and triggering therefore the need to acquire more and more languages.
a. The Definition of multilingualism
One group of academics[who?] argues for the maximal definition which means speakers are as proficient in one language as they are in others and have as much knowledge of and control over one language as they have of the others. Another group[who?] of academics argues for the minimal definition, based on use. Tourists who successfully communicate phrases and ideas while not fluent in a language may be seen as bilingual according to this group.
However, problems may arise with these definitions as they do not specify how much knowledge of a language is required for a person to be classified as bilingual. As a result, since most speakers do not achieve the maximal ideal, language learners may come to be seen as deficient and by extension, language teaching may come to be seen as a failure.
Since 1992, Vivian Cook has argued that most multilingual speakers fall somewhere between minimal and maximal definitions. Cook calls these people multi-competent.
b. Multilingual Individuals
A multilingual person, in a broad definition, is one who can communicate in more than one language, be it actively (through speaking, writing, or signing) or passively (through listening, reading, or perceiving). More specifically, the terms bilingual and trilingual are used to describe comparable situations in which two or three languages are involved. A multilingual person is generally referred to as a polyglot. Poly (Greek: πολύς) means "many", glot (Greek: γλώττα) means "language".
Multilingual speakers have acquired and maintained at least one language during childhood, the so-called first language (L1). The first language (sometimes also referred to as the mother tongue) is acquired without formal education, by mechanisms heavily disputed. Children acquiring two languages in this way are called simultaneous bilinguals. Even in the case of simultaneous bilinguals one language usually dominates over the other. This kind of bilingualism is most likely to occur when a child is raised by bilingual parents in a predominantly monolingual environment. It can also occur when the parents are monolingual but have raised their child or children in two different countries or when the parents are monolingual and raise their child in a society which speaks a language different from their own, which is common in immigrant populations of Western European countries. It's also possible (but rare) that children are raised in a multilingual country like the Netherlands where Dutch is the main language, but also includes the Frisian language in the northern part of the country. Because of the small surface of the country most children from Friesland learn Dutch and Frisian withhout formal education. Also Suriname which speaks Dutch and Papiamento have this feature.
In linguistics, first language acquisition is closely related to the concept of a "native speaker". According to a view widely held by linguists, a native speaker of a given language has in some respects a level of skill which a second (or subsequent) language learner can hardly reliably accomplish. Consequently, descriptive empirical studies of languages are usually carried out using only native speakers as informants. This view is, however, slightly problematic, particularly as many non-native speakers demonstrably not only successfully engage with and in their non-native language societies, but in fact may become culturally and even linguistically important contributors (as, for example, writers, politicians and performing artists) in their non-native language. In recent years, linguistic research has focused attention on the use of widely known world languages such as English as lingua franca, or the shared common language of professional and commercial communities. In lingua franca situations, most speakers of the common language are functionally multilingual.
c. Comparing multilingual speakers
Even if someone is highly proficient in two or more languages, his or her so-called communicative competence or ability may not be as balanced. Linguists have distinguished various types of multilingual competence, which can roughly be put into two categories:
For compound bilinguals, words and phrases in different languages are the same concepts. That means that 'chien' and 'dog' are two words for the same concept for a French-English speaker of this type. These speakers are usually fluent in both languages.
For coordinate bilinguals, words and phrases in the speaker's mind are all related to their own unique concepts. Thus a bilingual speaker of this type has different associations for 'chien' and for 'dog'. In these individuals, one language, usually the first language, is more dominant than the other, and the first language may be used to think through the second language. These speakers are known to use very different intonation and pronunciation features, and sometimes to assert the feeling of having different personalities attached to each of their languages.
A sub-group of the latter is the subordinate bilingual, which is typical of beginning second language learners.
The distinction between compound and coordinate bilingualism has come under scrutiny. When studies are done of multilinguals, most are found to show behavior intermediate between compound and coordinate bilingualism. Some authors have suggested that the distinction should only be made at the level of grammar rather than vocabulary, others use "coordinate bilingual" as a synonym for one who has learned two languages from birth, and others have proposed dropping the distinction altogether (see Baetens-Beardsmore, 1974 for discussion).
Many theorists are now beginning to view bilingualism as a "spectrum or continuum of bilingualism" that runs from the relatively monolingual language learner to highly proficient bilingual speakers who function at high levels in both languages (Garland, 2007).
d. Cognitive proficiency
There is also a phenomenon known as distractive bilingualism or semilingualism. When acquisition of the first language is interrupted and insufficient or unstructured language input follows from the second language, as sometimes happens with immigrant children, the speaker can end up with two languages both mastered below the monolingual standard.
Literacy plays an important role in the development of language in these immigrant children. Those who were literate in their first language before arriving in Japan, and who have support to maintain that literacy, are at the very least able to maintain and master their first language.
e. Multilingual with Community
Widespread multilingualism is one form of language contact. Multilingualism was more common in the past than is usually supposed: in early times, when most people were members of small language communities, it was necessary to know two or more languages for trade or any other dealings outside one's own town or village, and this holds good today in places of high linguistic diversity such as Sub-Saharan Africa and India. Linguist Ekkehard Wolff esti ates that 50% of the population of Africa is multilingual.
In multilingual societies, not all speakers need to be multilingual. Some states can have multilingual policies and recognise several official languages, such as Canada (English and French). In some states, particular languages may be associated with particular regions in the state (e.g., Canada) or with particular ethnicities (Malaysia/Singapore). When all speakers are multilingual, linguists classify the community according to the functional distribution of the languages involved:
§ diglossia: if there is a structural functional distribution of the languages involved, the society is termed 'diglossic'. Typical diglossic areas are those areas in Europe where a regional language is used in informal, usually oral, contexts, while the state language is used in more formal situations. Frisia (withFrisian and German or Dutch) and Lusatia (with Sorbian and German) are well-known examples. Some writers limit diglossia to situations where the languages are closely related, and could be considered dialects of each other. This can also be observed in Scotland where in formal situations, Englishis used. However, in informal situations in many areas, Scots is the preferred language of choice.
§ ambilingualism: a region is called ambilingual if this functional distribution is not observed. In a typical ambilingual area it is nearly impossible to predict which language will be used in a given setting. True ambilingualism is rare. Ambilingual tendencies can be found in small states with multiple heritages like Luxembourg, which has a combined Franco-Germanic heritage, or Malaysia and Singapore, which fuses the cultures of Malays, China, and India. Ambilingualism also can manifest in specific regions of larger states that have both a clearly dominant state language (be it de jure or de facto) and a protected minority language that is limited in terms of distribution of speakers within the country. This tendency is especially pronounced when, even though the local language is widely spoken, there is a reasonable assumption that all citizens speak the predominant state tongue (E.g., English in Quebec vs. Canada; Spanish in Catalonia vs. Spain). This phenomenon can also occur in border regions with many cross-border contacts.
§ bipart-lingualism: if more than one language can be heard in a small area, but the large majority of speakers are monolinguals, who have little contact with speakers from neighbouring ethnic groups, an area is called 'bipart-lingual'. An example of this is the Balkans.
f. Potential multilingual speakers
§ Natives under a state in which they do not share the predominant language, such as Welsh people within the United Kingdom.
§ People with a strong interest in a foreign language.
§ People who find it necessary to acquire a second language for practical purposes such as business, information gathering (Internet, mainly English) or entertainment (foreign language films, books or computer games).
§ Immigrants and their descendants. Although the heritage language may be lost after one or two generations, particularly if the replacing language has greater prestige.
§ Children of expatriates. However, language loss of the L1 or L2 in younger children may be rapid when removed from a language community.
§ Residents in border areas between two countries with different languages, where each language is seen as of equal prestige: efforts may be made by both language communities to acquire an L2. Yet, in areas where one language is more prestigious than the other, speakers of the less prestigious language may acquire the dominant language as an L2. In time, however, the different language communities may be reduced to one, as one language becomes extinct in that area.
§ Children whose parents each speak a different language, in multilingual communities. In monolingual communities, when parents maintain a different-parent/different-language household, their children may become multilingual. On the other hand, in monolingual communities, where parents have different L1s, multilingualism in the child may be achieved when both parents maintain a one-language (not the community language) household.
§ Children in language-rich communities where neither language is seen as more prestigious than the other and where interaction between people occurs in different languages on a frequent basis. An example of this would be the city of Montreal, Canada and some border towns in the Canadian Province of Québec.
§ Children who have one or more parents who have learned a second language, either formally (in classes) or by living in the country. The parent chooses to speak only this second language to the child. One study suggests that during the teaching process, the parent also boosts his or her own language skills, learning to use the second language in new contexts as the child grows and develops linguistically.
§ People who marry into families where their first language is not commonly spoken.
g. Multilingual Education
Multilingual Education typically refers to "first-language-first" education, that is, schooling which begins in the mother tongue and transitions to additional languages. Typically MLE programs are situated in developing countries where speakers of minority languages tend to be disadvantaged in the mainstream education system.
Components of Multilingual Education (CME)
§ "Strong Foundation" - Research shows that children whose early education is in the language of their home tend to do better in the later years of their education (Thomas and Collier, 1997). For more information about the effect of "Language of Instruction", see Bilingual education.
§ "Strong Bridge" - an essential difference between MLE programs and rural "mother tongue education" programs is the inclusion of a guided transition from learning through the mother tongue to learning through another tongue.
Related to the emphasis on a child's mother tongue is the implicit validation of her cultural or ethnic identity by taking languages which were previously considered "non-standard" and making active use of them in the classroom. Multilingual Education in that sense underscores the importance of the child's worldview in shaping his or her learning.
4. CONCLUSION
We have explored the bilingualism and multilingualism an its role in societies and communities, educational, potentials and so on. Bilingualism and multilingualism are no danger of disappearing any time soon; it is firmly established both in America and in countries throughout the world. In fact, no language has ever held as strong a position in the world as English does today. Some people worry when they see Spanish showing up on billboards and pay phones, but in a neighborhood with a high Spanish speaking population, it makes perfectly good sense for public information and instructions to be printed in both English and Spanish. This doesn't mean that the English language is in danger. The truth is that there will probably always be immigrants in the U.S., coming from a wide variety of countries, who cannot speak English but whose grandchildren and great-grandchildren will end up being native English speakers. The reason for this is, again, the fact that it is much easier for children to learn another language than it is for adults.
In sum, bilingualism isn't a danger either to the English language or to the bilingual speakers themselves. On the contrary, there are many advantages to bilingualism, both for the individual and for the society as a whole. English enjoys tremendous dominance in the U.S. and in the world. But if history is any indication, there will always be people in the U.S. who cannot speak English — and they will have grandchildren who do.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bialystok E, Luk G, Kwan E (2005). "Bilingualism, Biliteracy, and Learning to Read: Interactions Among Languages and Writing Systems". Scientific Studies of Reading 9 (1): 43–61.doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0901_4.
Council of Europe: 2007a. From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education: Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Guide_niveau2_EN.asp
Clément, R., & Gardner, R. C. (2001). Second language mastery. In H. Giles, & P. Robinson (eds.), The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology London: Wiley, pp. 489–504. Gallois, C., Giles,
EC : 2007. Commission of the European Communities, Final Report, High Level group on Multilingualism: Luxembourg
Grosjean, F.(1997) The Bilingual Individual. Interpreting 2 (1/2), 163-187.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1985). A model of uncertainty reduction in intergroup encounters. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 79–98.
Giles, H., Bourhis, R.Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. New York: Academic Press, pp. 307–348.
Hakuta, Kenji; Bialystok, Ellen (1994). In other words: the science and psychology of second language acquisition. New York: BasicBooks. ISBN 0465075657.
Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000). Bilinguality and Bilingualism, 2nd edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jim Cummins, "Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters," Working Papers on Bilingualism, no. 19 (1979), p. 121-129.
Lambert, W. E. (1978). Cognitive ad socio-cultural consequences of bilingualism. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 537–547.
Malherbe EG 1977 Education in South Africa Vol. 2 1923–5. Cape Town: Juta & Co.Ltd.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
Weinreich, U.(1953) Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar