Bilinguality and bilingualism hamers and blanc

Running head: LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN BILINGUALS 1

LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN BILINGUALS 2

Language Development in Mono-, Bi-, and Multilinguals

Student’s name

Institution

Language Development in Mono-, Bi-, and Multilinguals

When thinking about raising their children in an environment where several languages are used, parents may be hampered by popular parenting literature on language delays caused by bilingualism. However, in recent decades scholars are unanimous in proving that there are positive consequences of bilingual and multilingual experience. In general, for the normal baby, being exposed to two, three or more languages simultaneously is a good policy for language development. Unless social influences or parental attitudes downgrade the value of one of the languages, bilingual children experience the enhancement of cognitive functioning, metalinguistic awareness, and the command of language adequate their age when compared to monolingual children.

Among standard parental concerns for children bilingualism are language delays in comparison to monolingual children of the same age and language confusion. A number of researchers refute such beliefs. King and Fogle remind that often parents confuse the clinical application of the term “language delay” meaning medically determined failures to correspond to language milestones “either primary (not associated with another disorder) or secondary (associated with conditions such as autism)” (2006). If we reference “language delay” to a situation when a child needs a little longer time to start speaking as compared to his or her monolingual counterparts than it can be true (Runnqvist et al., 2013, p. 253). However, there are also researches who confirm that bilinguals have their first words in the first language simultaneously with monolinguals (Poulin-Dubois et al., 2013, p. 58).

Language confusion is believed to be one of the reasons responsible for language delay in its non-medical sense. At that, mixing of languages is not a sign of confusion and is called “code-switching” (King & Fogle, 2006). If a child is able to code-switch it means that he or she has a good command of two linguistic systems. Petitto and Holowka state “very early simultaneous language exposure does not cause a young child to be delayed with respect to the semantic and conceptual underpinnings at the heart of all natural language, and this is true regarding each of the young bilingual’s two native languages” (King & Fogle, 2006).

The one-parent, one-language approach, which is aimed at assisting to avoid language confusion, “can also result in passive bilingualism” (King & Fogle, 2006). Passive or receptive knowledge of a language happens when a child understands two languages in his or her environment but prefers to speak only the dominant language. When discussing what approach to use for raising bilingual children researchers tend to emphasize for parents “the total quantity and quality of exposure to both languages that their children receive,” which means that it is acceptable to use two or more languages in the same situations or the minority language by both parents at home (King & Fogle, 2006).

Another aspect that worries parents of bilingual children is the size of vocabulary. Researchers report that there is a gap in language proficiency between monolingual and bilingual children that may continue into adulthood (Poulin-Dubois et al., 2013, p. 58). Generally it means that in bilinguals each of their languages contains a smaller vocabulary size if compared to monolinguals. However, if we combine the young bilinguals’ vocabulary both in the dominant and minor language it equals or exceeds that of monolinguals’ (Poulin-Dubois et al., 2013, p. 66).

All the above mentioned does not exclude both bilingual and monolingual children from having similarities and differences in their language study processes. According to recent studies, both bilingual and monolingual infants demonstrate word recognition at the age of 10 months. At the same time, when encountering similar-sounding words bilingual children can have a delay in the ability to attach words to the corresponding objects; but they are quicker in understanding the meaning of the nonse words based on the context (Poulin-Dubois et al., 2013, p. 60). The research of Poulin-Dubois and the colleagues revealed that word comprehension and reaction time are equal for both bilingual and monolingual infants at the age of 24 months as well as receptive vocabulary development (2013, p. 66).

Despite many reports about the smaller vocabulary at bilinguals, the general cognitive abilities and the sociocultural environment should be taken into account. Josiane F. Hamers and Michel H. A. Blanc indicate the “high” and “low” bilinguals based on their score in the Gates-McGinitie Reading Test in their mother tongue (2004, p. 93). It is natural that those who have worse results in the Reading test have smaller vocabulary. Thus, if compare the high bilinguals to the high monolinguals there is no difference in language development.

Another factor that influences the mastery of the second language is the age when a child begins learning it. A 1976 UNESCO investigation in Sweden found that there is a correlation between the age of children and a level of the second language. Those Finnish children who migrated to Sweden at age 10 had almost the same level in both languages unlike those who migrated at an earlier age (Hamers & Blanc, 2004, p. 93). It means that the better results in the second language can be observed with the fully established first language. A similar finding is mentioned in the study of Poulin-Dubois and the colleagues. Sequential bilinguals show poorer accuracy and slower reaction times when naming an object while simultaneous bilinguals do not tend to have issues with lexical access (Poulin-Dubois et al., 2013, p. 67).

Stating that proficiency in mother tongue is crucial for a successful mastery of the second language Cummins adds another important factor “the threshold of language competence” implying that in order to positively influence cognitive abilities the high level of competence in both languages should be reached (Hamers & Blanc, 2004, p. 96). Only in this case we can talk about a positive effect of bilingualism. In the situation with one language dominant there is no effect on cognitive processes, whereas in the situation of “semilinguism,” when competence in both languages is low, the effects are negative. There is empirical evidence proving that fluent bilinguals outperform not only their non-fluent counterparts but only monolinguals (Hamers & Blanc, 2004, p. 96).

The hypothesis of one language influencing another one works in the opposite direction. While a person is trained in a second language his or her mother tongue receives a higher level of competence (Hamers & Blanc, 2004, p. 98). Therefore, the interdependence of languages in general influences and develops cognitive-linguistic skills. For Vygotsky, early exposure to the second language results in awareness of linguistic systems and leads to cognitive growth (Hamers & Blanc, 2004, p. 85). Young bilinguals become early aware of words, phonology, syntactic structures, and other structural components of language, which is referred to as “metalinguistic awareness” and results in understanding “the arbitrariness of the word-object relation or the capacity to identify and correct syntactic errors” (Hamers & Blanc, 2004, p. 362).

Many researchers point to the sociocultural context as influential on bilingualism differentiating between additive and subtractive bilinguality. An additive form of bilingualism is a result of favorable attitude towards both languages when both parents and community encourage learning two languages and languages are balanced and do not threaten each other. Subtractive bilinguality usually occurs in minority groups when the more prestigious language pushes out mother tongue. The situation with languages always influences cognitive results. Empirical results demonstrated that children have better academic results if their less prestigious mother tongue is not neglected at home but practiced (Hamers & Blanc, 2004, p. 101).

It is obvious that family is of primary importance for the development of any number of languages. If one of the languages is weaker a number of strategies should be implemented in order to maintain it. They can include visits to the countries where the weaker language can be practiced, participation in peer language groups and other ways of balancing bilinguality. The community can contribute to bilingual development through multilingual settings or membership in a minority group. There are researches that prove that even unschooled bilingual children demonstrate better cognitive results than unschooled monolinguals from the same environment. The key factors are “the social valorization of bilinguality and in the children’s social networks” (Hamers & Blanc, 2004, p. 103).

Valorization is extremely important. The more valorized is the child’s mother tongue the better are his or her results in the second language. In case of difficulties in reading in the dominant language valorization of the home language helped even more than just remedial reading classes (Hamers & Blanc, 2004, p. 103). With multilingualism the situation is similar. Valorization enables children to balance two or three languages and become fluent trilinguals with, for example, two heritage languages and one official language of the country of residence (Hamers & Blanc, 2004, p. 104).

Summing up it can be said that with positive parental attitudes towards and high social valorization of bilinguality or multilingualism any number of languages can be well-mastered and balanced. The languages are interdependable, therefore, a better level of competence in one language positively influences the other. In case of subtractive bilinguality the results will be better if the dominant language will be well-developed.

In conclusion, bilinguality or multilingualism has a positive effect on cognitive outcome, given positive reinforcement, motivation, proper sociocultural context, and exposure to both languages. Otherwise, the effect can be negative or neutral.

Appendix

1. What were the databases, if any, that you used to find each article or book;

Google Scholar and CSUN Oviatt Library.

2. What was the search strategy you used (i.e., the search words you used) in each database to find the articles;

Bilingual language development, Bilinguality and bilingualism in each database

3. Was each article that you cited an example of Primary or Secondary research?

Only one article was an example of primary research. It is “Lexical access and vocabulary development in very young bilinguals” by Runnqvist, E., FitzPatrick, I., Strijkers, K., and Costa, A.

References

Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. (2004). Bilinguality and bilingualism (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

King, K., & Fogle, L. (2006, April). Raising bilingual children: Common parental concerns and current research. CAL Center for Applied Linguistics, 4. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/raising-bilingual-children.html

Poulin-Dubois, D., Bialystok, E., Blaye, A., Polonia, A., & Yott, J. (2013). Lexical access and vocabulary development in very young bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(1), 57 –70. doi: 10.1177/1367006911431198. Retrieved from http://ijb.sagepub.com/content/17/1/57.full.pdf+html

Runnqvist, E., FitzPatrick, I., Strijkers, K., & Costa, A. (2013). An appraisal of the bilingual language production system: Quantitatively or qualitatively different from monolinguals? In T. K. Bhatia, & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 244-267). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.