Stephen van Vlack
Sookmyung Women`s University
Graduate School of TESOL
Developing Bilingualism
Fall 2005
Week 3 - Answers
Hamers and Blanc - Chapter 2: Dimensions and measurement of bilingualism and bilinguality
Wei, Li. (2000) Dimensions of bilinguality. In L. Wei (ed.) (2000), pp. 3-25.
Mackey, W. (2000) The description of bilingualism. In L. Wei (ed.) (2000), pp. 26-54.
There are many different aspects to the closely related areas of bilingualism and bilinguality and we should, therefore, study them in a rather eclectic way. This means that we have to take an interdisciplinary approach to their study. It is not enough to look at their cognitive/psychological aspects, or even just the linguistic aspects. We need to look at the social and societal situation as well as age and affective/motivational factors in addition to those things mentioned above. This means that a good study of bilingualism/bilinguality is quite difficult because we must consider many things at the same time. Alternatively we can focus on one thing at a time but when doing so it is important to be sure to understand that there is much more to the whole picture. This distinguishes the study of bilinguality/bilingualism with that of linguistics or SLA which tend to be highly compartmentalized (modular). In bilingualism it is impossible to avoid many of the issues which are traditionally ignored in other areas of language study. From the study of bilingualism or multilingualism, in which so many points are necessarily integrated we get a get a more holistic view of language which should help us as language teachers.
1. Hamers and Blanc name 6 dimensions of bilinguality. Do you think these is are enough or might they be too much? Think about your own situation. (BB, pp. 25-26)
The six different dimensions of bilinguality that Blanc and Hamers mention are:
1. competence = balanced, dominant
2. cognitive organization = compound, coordinate
3. age = simultaneous, consecutive
4. exogeneity = presence, absence
5. social cultural status = additive, subtractive
6. cultural identity = bicultural, acculturated
Above is a list of the six dimensions of bilinguality according to Hamers and Blanc and the possible outcomes associated with each variable (dimension). It is important to note that the types of bilinguality resulting from each of these conditions is not a matter of simple or dipolar options. Thus, for someone to be a balanced bilingual more than just competence is required. Balanced bilinguality is often the result of a simultaneous type of acquisition, but the exposure to both languages must be retained at a certain level over an certain duration. Thus, each of these dimensions can and often must be broken down into many smaller concerns. We will talk in detail about each of these dimensions later in he course so you will be able to get a fuller realization of the complexities of these and the whole process of subsequent language development.
2. Using the dimensions of bilingualism as described by Wei what kind of bilingual do you think you are? Create and briefly explain a profile of your own bilinguality. (Wei, pp. 5-8)
I think you did this in class. When we get some time I will start to explain my own type of multilinguality which was, to a large extent at some point, the major impetus and design of my life. The major problem I have is trying to relegate or limit my multlinguality to the polar constraints of a bilingual measurement. The connections between the languages are simply too complex.
3. If English in Korea is neither an endogenous nor an exogenous language, then how can we describe it? (BB, p. 29)
English in Korea is not an endogenous language because there are no real fully-functioning English speaking communities here. All Koreans speak Korean and the foreign community which is here is very small and fluid in addition to being basically ignored by Koreans. Very few non-Koreans stay permanently and those who do eventually have to learn Korean. Nor is English in any way an official language in Korea, so English is certainly not endogenous. Koreans would generally feel uncomfortable using English to communicate orally with each other out in the open.
At the same time, however, there is a concerted effort (maybe even a mania) toward learning English. The situation here, then, is closer to an exogenous one, but the bottom line is that Koreans so strive to learn how to communicate in English, just not with each other. English is learned so that people can communicate with foreigners. In this way English is perceived as a very foreign, even distant language. At the same time, however, English is a prestige language here and as a result is wildly sought after.
Based on the fact that English is perceived as such a prestige language and more and more pressure is being placed on people to learn it, the position of English in Korea must eventually bow to these forces and will have to change in the near future. Whether English will take the endo or exogenous route in Korea or will simply fade in its status is hard to say at this point, but based on the fact that Korean is the mother tongue of virtually all of the permanent inhabitants of the country it would seem reasonable to assume that we would need to develop an English speaking community here before English could reasonably become an official language (endogenous language). Think about this because you are directly involved not only as a Korean citizen but as an English-teaching professional.
4. What is the main distinction between additive and subtractive bilinguality? (BB, pp. 29-30; Wei, pp. 18-25).
Both of these conditions occur primarily in younger learners whose cognitive/linguistic development is not yet complete. All of you should be aware of the functionalist claims that linguistic development and cognitive development are tightly connected. In order to say something, there are first many concepts that must be understood. For example, before a child can start to name things they have to understand the concept of object permanence. In a seminal work, Piaget outlined a theory of equilibration in which cognitive theories allow linguistic advancements to take place and the children, then, using their new forms can use language to test and further develop cognitive theories. In this way, he outlined a theory in which cognition and language are seen as being tightly interwoven. Now, while a minority of linguists actually accept Piaget`s theory most would acknowledge a sometimes link between language and thought or language and cognition.
Now, in the process of becoming bilingual, we can see how cognitive development plays an important role. Subtractive bilinguality is when a child has one language which is not fully developed and they start to learn another language. If the prestige of the second language is much higher than the first and the first language is dropped entirely or is terribly undervalued in the face of the second language, they lose cognitive skills acquired in connection with the first language because they cease to sue it and the cognition that supports it. Since this child has to restart the language learning process at a much lower level than they were at in their first language the process of cognitive development slows down dramatically or might even stop completely. This causes the child to fall behind all the other children. They will be deemed dumb and may never be able to catch up to the other mono-lingual students. In additive bilingualism the opposite happens. The child learns a second language but the first language is not abandoned. The first language will continue to develop and the second language is learned along side the first language. Since language development does not slow down or take a step back cognitive development is not at all halted, rather the learning of the second language works as a kind of push from behind which will actually push these people to develop cognitively faster and more completely. The main point to be gathered from all this is that it is very important how we as teachers go about handling primary language education. Children need to value their first language and not be afraid to use it even if there is a second language to be learned. The danger we face in Korea is that English is often weighed much more heavily by many young parents than Korean. Under such circumstances the possibility for subtractive bilingualism must be acknowledged.
5. Is cultural identity necessary for someone to be bilingual? (BB, p. 30)
NO! Certainly feeling that they belong to the target language culture can be extremely motivating for a language learner and may impel them to do many things they would otherwise not do, but it is not a prerequisite for bilinguality (it is much more so for balanced bilinguals). In the same way, a person can be bi-cultural without feeling that they belong to both cultures. Also, the feelings of the learner might change during the learning process. If, for example, the learner goes to Canada for two years they might feel Canadian while they are there but lose that sense of cultural identity when they return to Korea. As teachers of English we must understand the potential power of what having a target language cultural identity might mean, but we cannot not push such things in our classes all the time. The link between cultural identity and motivation is strong and as such can also result in a negative development or loss of motivation if a society is not receptive to bilingualism or biculturalism.
6. What are the main problems in assessing the competence of bilinguals? (BB, pp. 34-35; Mackey, pp. 27-39)
Since we really need to focus on the use of the languages that a bilingual possesses, the problem in assessing this is basically the same as the problems we face in assessing language production in general. Central to the idea of productive language assessment is the idea of native speaker competence. The reality of the situation is that there are wide differences in the competences of native speakers, so the term native speaker competence is very hard to qualify scientifically. Production tests have come a long way recently and testers have turned their attention from simple tests of linguistic knowledge to tests of language use but with mixed results. Tests like the OPI, MATE, and TSE are all somewhat reliable, though expensive and taxing ways of measuring language performance.
The best approach to take in measuring the performance of bilinguals is just to make sure that many different types of measurement are used. Do not be satisfied with the results of one or two types of test. Do a survey of language use, give them an OPI, and do a word association test at least as a start. See where you can go from there.
7. How can reaction or latency-time measure test be used to test bilinguality? (BB, pp. 36-37)
In this type of test, words are typically flashed across a computer screen and the subject is asked to react to the word by clicking a mouse or pushing a button as soon as they can recognize the word. Reaction times are then measured. If the reaction times are different form one language or the answers are more faulty for one, then the subject is not a balanced bilingual. By using a headset in which sounds are put into one ear or eye gear in which words are put into one eye, we can use the same procedure to determine in which hemisphere of the brain a language might be contained. These are simple to design, but require a special computer program to run and be assessed.
8. Is translation a good sign of bilinguality? (BB, pp. 38-39)
No, it definitely is not. Bilinguals usually do not have to translate. Bilinguals basically attach forms to functions in two different languages. We know that form to function mapping generally occurs as a subconscious process in fluent bilinguals. Translation, on the other hand, is a conscious process in which the forms of one language are replaced by forms of another language. Translation may actually have nothing to do with functions. It can be limited to forms and in such cases occurs in a totally different part of the brain that form to function mapping. This does not mean that bilinguals never translate. As mentioned above, bilinguals all have gaps in our linguistic systems. Sometimes they have to translate to fill those gaps, but translation is not the main skill of a bilingual. A bilinguals special skill is their ability to map forms in more than one linguistic system to functions.
9. What is the relationship between code-switching and interference? (BB, pp. 41-42; Mackey, pp. 40-53)
Code switching is one of the most widely researched areas in bilingual studies. If you want to read more about this fascinating bilingual behavior look for Milroy and Muysken. 1995. One Speaker, Two Languages. Cambridge: CUP. Code switching can be described quite simply. It is when a speaker uses forms from more than one language in one utterance or conversation. When a Korean speaking Korean occasionally uses an English word, phrase or sentence we say they are code switching. Code-switching occurs asa specialized behavior of bilinguals, but is not much different than the form to function matching of mono-linguals. The main difference is that for bilinguals each function has links to forms in more than one language. As a bilingual, a person can choose the form that best suits the situation and as long as they are talking to another bilingual then they do not have to worry about in which language the forms. That is the essence of code-switching. From this you can see that code-switching is quite different from interference in that code-switching involves making a subconscious choice about which form better fits the situation or represents the speaker`s valency values. Interference occurs due to lack of competence, but code-switching occurs because of an excess in competence.
Kecskes and Papp 2000, Chapter 2
1. How do the authors propose the L2 to affect the L1?
Rather than proposing that foreign language exposure might have an effect on L1 forms themselves, as we know is often the case in exposure from L1 to L2 or FL, Kecskes and Papp propose that an FL might affect cognition and such effects will impact on how the L1 is used in cognitively demanding situations like reading and especially writing/composing. It is also important to understand that in this proposal language and cognition are indelibly intertwined. One exists with and on the basis of the other. The basic idea is that language use is controlled by cognition or conceptual structures. This is the basis of all language use and to be able to use language effectively across increased demands as we get older we need to be able to control more and more varied conceptual structures. In this proposal they are claiming that learning a foreign language allows us to awaken, if not exactly learn, certain conceptual structures which have lay dormant and that these conceptual structures will then be able to heighten elements of language use. In this sense Kecskes and Papp are being extremely cautious. It is highly possible that a second or foreign language might affect a first language in a variety of ways and certainly on cognition but not only on cognition but on meaning. This is an idea we will return to later in this course. To understand exactly the hypothesis of the current research we need to first understand the nature of written speech and how it might vary from spoken language.
2. What is written speech and how is it developed and how does it work?
Written speech is basically a fancy expression for writing. It differs from speaking in that it is not reactive, it is at worst a delayed reaction to input and at best a highly planned and carefully constructed instance of language use with out without an instigating input. The chief difference between speaking and writing, then, is seen as the level of planning, the level of control and the thought which goes into each written utterance. Written speech varies not only in the way the forms are put together, but also in the forms themselves. It exists, therefore, on two different levels: the planning level and the form level. It is important to recognize that these two levels are not mutually exclusive, they are constantly interacting with each other. The more one is able to plan, the more complex their utterances are going to be. Likewise, the more one is able to put together complex utterances with ease the greater they are going to be able plan their utterances. It is widely acknowledged in literacy circles that forms and planning do actually go together.
In a regular naturalistic language learning cycle written speech is developed as an abstraction from spoken forms. We take a basic ideas associated with the spoken forms (the underlying conceptual structures) and extend them. One of these chief methods of extension is through fusion and linking. We know that written speech is much more efficient than speaking in that more meaning is contained within a shorter span of language because more complex connections exist between the different units. By fusing concepts and linking these concepts linguistically we are able to create much more complex ideas in a shorter linguistic space. Maybe a simple example will make this clearer.
(1) Unbelievable though it may seem because of his sweet demeanor Harry is the man who did kill and eat my dog at my last fancy dress ball.
(2) I had a fancy dress ball. It was not very long ago that I had this fancy dress ball. To this fancy dress ball I invited a man named Harry. I liked Harry. I thought that Harry was a man of sweet demeanor. He wasn`t. At the fancy dress ball he killed my dog. He also ate my dog. I think it is unbelievable.
Looking at these examples above we can contrast the seeming simplicity of (1) against the strange ramblings of (2). We can see how by carefully planning at both levels our utterances we can write much more effectively than we can actually speak. To do so requires more cognitive control. To be a good writer of a language one needs to have control over many different formal elements of that language. This is basically the hypothesis or proposal that Kecskes and Papp are making for this study. They are claiming, and actually in a very conservative way, that learning a foreign language helps us master or relearn some of the formal elements of our native language. This comes about, they claim, because foreign languages are taught in a formal way. When we learn a foreign language we don`t really learn how to speak and we`re really not exposed to spoken forms of that language. Rather, we are all really introduced to written speech albeit in the mode of actually speaking. When we study grammar formally in a foreign language situation we are not really learning the grammar of the spoken language (which varies dramatically from that of written forms) but we are really studying the grammar of written speech. This is why this transfer seems to occur.
3. Briefly outline the design of the experiment.
The experiment has four different variables in its design.
First is the different situations in which the subjects are placed - immersion, intensive and control.
While we are all aware that immersion programs have been touted as effective situations for second or foreign language learning it might at first seem very strange that an immersion situation would result in better usage patterns in the first language. This is because, as is also present in this study, the subjects are actually exposed to less of their first language in an immersion situation. We might therefore have hypothesized that the immersion group subjects would actually lose certain skills in their native language, in this case Hungarian. For the intensive group we would possibly hypothesize the best affects because not only are they getting a large amount of input and instruction in their first language but they are also getting a quite large or as the name implies fairly intensive amount of instruction and input in the foreign language, in this case either Russian or English. Control groups are always control groups we expect little to happen to them. Sad.
Second is the timing of the different tests - X, nine months later, 12 months later
The timing here is the simple timing that we would find in a standard longitudinal type study. In such studies there needs to be a certain amount of time between testing instances for development to possibly occur. If there is no timing between the different tests then there might not be any measurable differences simply because the subjects have not had enough time to acquire any new skills.
Third is the tasks - familiar essay, unfamiliar essay, picture-based story L1 + FL, advertisement
The different tasks here should be familiar to most of you. This last task, though, is a little bit strange and the authors themselves acknowledge this fact. It would seem that the final task would require or under normal circumstances call for a more informal type of writing and that most writers would not include very many subordinate clauses or sophisticated grammar in such a task. I`m wondering why this was put as the final task, because at this point we would assume that we would want a task that would call for a possibly large number of complex structures. This could be a certain flaw in their design, or at least it makes the results a little bit harder to interpret I think.
Fourth is the evaluation of the tasks - Frequency Index, Unusual Subordinations, Loban Index, Loban number
What all this basically boils down to, fancy and complicated though it may seem, is the idea that complex language use requires more cognitive control. Based on this all these different measurement tools are designed to evaluate different types of complexity in the forms used by the subjects in the different tasks. Each one has a slightly different focus so that the researchers can see which different aspects of complex structure seemed to be easier or less easy for different subjects to produce on different tasks. As we often see, the results different tasks will result in the production of different types of complexity from the subjects. It is hard to say this point if the experiment design is possibly a bit overly complicated, but in the end the results do emerge and rather clearly.
4. What are the results of the experiment?
The results show that exposure to an FL does seem to affect usage in the L1, even where the students are getting less exposure to the L1. It seems that FL exposure activates passive knowledge in the L1 which is beneficial in writing. This is pretty much what they expected to find and in fact they do find it but of course a certain amount of exposure is required for these results to occur. The control group did not have these kind of effects so we find with general bilingual development a threshold level of exposure seems to be required for positive aspects of bilinguality to come into play. These results also point to the specific notion that different languages are interrelated. This is a very important conclusion and is one which we will discuss at great length more next week.
5. How would you interpret the results? Does your interpretation vary from that of the authors?
There are many different ways of actually interpreting these results. One of the key issues in this study is the age of the participants. The success of the study is really related to the participants themselves. If the study had been done with people who were three years younger or three years older the results might not have been the same, or at least not quite as uniform as they were. Younger subjects who had not yet completed some of their basic cognitive development might have actually shown some negative effects on their Hungarian as a result all the increased exposure to other languages and diminished exposure to their own first language as in the immersion group. Older learners who had, to a certain extent, already mastered some of the specific cognitive elements related to composition might not show strong results because they don`t need to learn those aspects. So the results are not quite as simple as they might appear. They are however compelling in that we can see that a well developed and carefully constructed bilingual program, or a program of intense foreign language instruction, provided at the right time in a learners development will have beneficial effects on not just one language system but on all the different language systems contained. This is really nice for us both as language learners and teachers. Again, this is an idea we will return to later in this course.