Early bilinguals and their capacities for acquiring languages have been studied in depth over the past 70 years. However, research about the benefits and costs of an early childhood spent in a bilingual environment remains scattered and often divergent. This paper intends to examine and delineate these effects of an early childhood in a bilingual household. Particularly, it aims to answer questions as to whether or not people from these bilingual backgrounds have a broader range of language ability and if this broader range causes a reduced understanding of each language compared to the levels of comprehension attained by similar monolingual speakers. There is a notably slim amount of research as to a third question regarding if an early childhood in a bilingual environment perhaps leads to a heightened capacity for acquiring a third language. After approaching the first two questions, this paper investigates the third with theoretical analysis and then proposes a possible study to test its claims.
Effects Upon Range of Language Abilities
Growing up in a bilingual environment would seem to expand one’s range of language trivially, since it would seem to broaden one’s accessible language systems simply through the introduction of a second language. However, children raised in bilingual households do not always learn both languages. De Houwer (2007) found that among 1,899 bilingual families polled in Flanders, in nearly one quarter, none of the family’s children spoke a language aside from Dutch, the majority language of the region. She emphasizes the importance of parental language use and parental language inputs to raising a bilingual child. Other studies (e.g. Pearson 2007) suggest other factors such as literacy, language status, and community support, including schooling in the development of these children’s bilingualism. There are therefore two cases in discussing how growing up in a bilingual environment will affect a child’s range of language ability. In case 1, the child becomes effectively bilingual while in case 2, despite living in a bilingual household, the child does not.
In case 1, for the approximately ¾ of the children who do become bilingual, their breadth of language abilities is clearly augmented by the presence of a second language, simply because they therefore know an additional language structure in comparison to monolinguals who only know one. As for case 2 and the nearly ¼ of these children who do not learn a second language, these children also develop broader language abilities than monolinguals due to spending their early childhoods in bilingual environments. Particularly, even though they fail to learn a second language structurally, they nonetheless have the ability to phonetically process it, an ability which children from monolingual would not possess. Research has shown that at 6-8 months of age, infants respond uniformly to speech regardless of language. But by 10-12 months of age, infants begin to display language-specific perception (Yoshida, Werker et al 2007). However, infants in monolingual households realign their perception of phonology to be single language specific while infants living in bilingual environments begin to effectively discriminate between their family’s two languages. Bosch and Sebastián-Gallés (2001) claim that Spanish-Catalan bilingual infants to distinguish between their two languages by a mere 135 to 139 days of age. These results suggest that even at very young age, infants from bilingual households are equipped to process two languages phonetically, while infants from monolingual households are only equipped for one. Essentially, through the examination of these two cases, regardless of whether or not a child learns a second language, simply the exposure to this second language during early childhood expands the range of his or her language abilities compared to that of children from monolingual backgrounds. The rest of this paper will deal exclusively with case 1, where children from bilingual environments become bilingual themselves.
Strength in Each Language Compared to Monolingual Speakers
In considering the ability of children from bilingual environments to proficiently use each language, there are two issues that must be addressed. First is their short-term ability to acquire both languages in a similar fashion as monolingual speakers and second is their long-term ability to use both languages adeptly. As for the first issue, Hulk & Müller (2000) suggest that crosslinguistic influences in bilingual language acquisition are both predictable and systematic. They also suggest the criteria for crosslinguistic influences to occur: “(1) There is an interface between two modules of grammar (such as pragmatics and syntax), and (2) the two languages overlap in structure at the surface level” (Zwanziger, Allen, & Genesee 2005: 895). However, these criteria have been tested with divergent and often inconclusive results. Hacohen & Schaeffer (2007) corroborate Hulk & Müller’s clam by studying a child, “EK,” in the process of acquiring Hebrew and English simultaneously from birth. They then compared her progress to five Hebrew monolingual controls. EK’s appropriate and inappropriate handling of subjects and verbs matches Hulk & Müller’s criteria. Namely, “influence from English is restricted to phenomena that involve the syntax/pragmatics interface” (Hacohen & Schaeffer 2007: Abstract). Conversely, Zwanziger, Allen, & Genesee (2005) provide diverging evidence in their study of English-Inuktitut simultaneous bilingual children. Although Inuktitut and English satisfy Hulk & Müller’s criteria, there is no noticeable crosslinguistic influence between the languages among the subjects of the study. These results indicate that Hulk & Müller’s criteria are not universal. Regardless of these minor crosslinguistic influences, and more research is required to clarify these effects if they are even significant, a body of work has shown that bilingual children fundamentally systematize both languages at about the same rate as monolingual children (Genesee 2003). Thus, there is no known significant qualitative difference between a bilingual’s and monolingual’s process of acquiring of a native language.
As to the issue of long-term development of language skills, Cummins (1984) shows using a large body of research that there is no evidence that bilingualism negatively affects children’s academic growth. Often times, when educators see a floundering bilingual student, they immediately attribute the student’s shortcomings to their bilingual background, which is in fact unrelated. These sorts of hasty assessments merely compound students’ academic problems as their real academic issues go unaddressed and unresolved. Thus, in reality bilingual students’ academic failures are often due to misconceptions and rashness by their education systems and they are not directly related to the students’ bilingualism itself, which does not compromise their academic development, including in the majority language. Research has also shown that bilinguals also acquire the phonology of their two languages to the same extent that monolingual speakers do (Yoshida, Werker et al 2007). The presence of additional languages does not hinder the development of phonetic recognition and familiarity in any way. So despite general beliefs to the contrary, growing up in a bilingual environment does not limit or impair children’s abilities to speak their two languages at the same skill level as monolingual speakers.
Capacity for Acquiring Further Languages
Hypothetically, maintaining multiple language systems at a young age would heighten infants’ abilities to learn more languages in the future. However, Volterra & Taeschner (1978) propose a universal language system (ULS) hypothesis in which they posit that children exposed to two languages during their infancy go through a period in which they do not distinguish between the two. Instead, by the ULS hypothesis, during this stage, a child living in a bilingual environment considers words from both languages to be part of the same lexical system. Essentially, they argue that bilingual children go through a fundamentally monolingual stage in which they possess only one language system before they become truly bilingual. Most of this theory’s evidence comes from young children’s tendency to frequently code-mix. Volterra and Taeschner suggest that this ULS stage lasts until children are about three years old. This claim would predict that prior three years of age, while the children are still in their ULS stage, they would indiscriminately mix their two languages, since they do not recognize any distinctions between them. They wouldn’t be able to distinguish any language context, because during this stage, they perceive both languages to actually be parts of the same unitary system. Yet, this claim is not supported by recent research and evidence. In a study conducted on English-French bilingual children (Genesee et al 1995), researchers observed that children between 22-26 months in “1 parent, 1 language” households use the appropriate language for each of their parents, indicating that the children perceive their parents as representative of 2 different language contexts. Because the children might be simply associating certain words with a certain parent, they may not truly be differentiating their two languages. So the same researchers conducted the same experiment using monolingual strangers as the interlocutors to test the children’s sensitivity to language context. In this scenario, the children, generally in the 1-2 word stage of utterances, predominantly used the appropriate language, again suggesting that at about 22-26 months of age, well before the 3 year threshold of Volterra and Taeschner, children already have control over differentiated language systems. After studying a Spanish-English bilingual child, Deuchar & Quay (2005) suggest that this distinction occurs even earlier, around 20 months of age and that by this age, children possess differentiated syntactic, lexical, and phonological systems.
Time and time again, research has demonstrated that people are most able to learn language-based skills at young ages. The younger people are, the more able they are to learn these skills and abilities. Also, exposure to multiple languages during early childhood engenders in children the ability to retain multiple language systems. This skill is crucial for and central to learning any additional language at any time. So, by obtaining this integral skill in early childhood, children from bilingual households are ingraining it and learning it better than they would at a later stage. They would therefore be better equipped to learn a third language than monolingual speakers are to learn a second one. Also, by knowing multiple language systems, when approaching a new one, children from bilingual backgrounds would have more reference points than monolingual speakers would. They would be able to see more lexical, syntactic, and phonetic similarities between the new language and the familiar languages that they already know simply because they have a broader range of familiar languages than monolingual speakers. So again, bilingual speakers would be better prepared to learn new languages than monolingual speakers.
Unfortunately, little research exists comparing bilinguals’ and monolinguals’ ability to learn nonnative languages. A study could be conducted in the following fashion to address this issue. The purpose of this study would be to investigate the question of how students from bilingual and monolingual backgrounds differ and are similar in the developmental stages of acquiring new unfamiliar languages, both in terms of speed and proficiency. Due to the above theoretical analysis, a significant pattern of bilinguals outperforming monolinguals would be predicted.
Method
Design
High-school language classes would be effective pools to draw from or this study since in them bilinguals and monolinguals receive the same instruction and education. Ideally, to get truly comprehensive results, researchers would observe various foreign language classes over extended periods of time and note the development and approaches of monolinguals and bilinguals. However, this form of a study would be incredibly time and labor intensive, and therefore would be infeasible for all practical purposes. So instead, to test the predictions above and to investigate the questions posed, participants will be tested in the new language after consistent intervals of instruction. They will then be given a survey at a later date asking them about the easiest and most difficult lexical, syntactic, and phonetic aspects of learning the new language.
Participants
The participants used in this study will be high school students in introductory foreign language classes. They will be selected from various high schools that cross socio-economic demographics so as to eliminate the potentially confounding variable of class. No participant will have had any previous exposure or instruction in the language being taught, as this prior experience would compromise the data, as the study should only focus on bilinguals and monolinguals learning a new language in parallel. A relatively equal number of females and males will be used so as to eliminate the variable of gender.
Materials
The tests and surveys will be conducted using a standardized set of instructions. Prior to the test, a standardized questionnaire will be used to determine whether or not the subject spent their early childhood in a bilingual environment and if so, whether or not he or she became bilingual. The questionnaire will also determine if the subject is bilingual by some other means. The test will be entirely in the foreign language, without using the majority language in the instructions or questions at all so as to insure that only foreign language aptitude is being tested. It will have 3 sections, each with a different focus: a lexical part, a syntactic part, and a phonetic part.
Procedure
The tests and surveys will be conducted in quiet rooms within the students’ high schools that are not the classrooms used for foreign language instruction. The tests will be given without any prior notice, so as to test the participants’ current language skills and not their abilities to study for examinations. The test and the survey will all be given on separate dates so that they don’t influence one another, which could compromise the integrity of the results. The test will be given within a lenient but standardized and enforced time limit, such that all participants are tested equally. The participants will not be able to talk during the examinations. During the tests, they will not be able to ask questions, but during the survey, they will be able to ask the proctor questions for clarification.
The results of these surveys and tests will be stratified into four different groups: monolingual students from monolingual backgrounds (m-m students), bilingual students from monolingual backgrounds (b-m students), bilingual students from bilingual backgrounds (b-b students), and monolingual students from bilingual backgrounds (m-b students). The results will also be stratified by school so that students are compared only to other students within their class at school to eliminate the confounding variable of instruction methodology and quality.
Discussion
Through the theoretical analyses above and by previous research, the basic hypotheses driving this study is that children from bilingual environments are better equipped than children with monolingual backgrounds to learn a new language. According hypothesis (a), it would be predicted that students with bilingual backgrounds would outperform students with monolingual backgrounds, regardless of whether or not they are currently monolingual or bilingual. In other words, b-b and m-b students would both outperform m-m and b-m students. However, the differences between the performance of these different categories of students on the test should be fairly nuanced.
First, b-b students should outperform all other categories because they reap all of the benefits of bilingualism: they have a broader range of lexical, syntactic, and phonetic reference points and they have the experience of maintaining two language systems at a young age. Conversely, m-m students share none of these benefits. However, m-b and b-m students have an intriguing mix of them which should reflect on their tests. The m-b students lack the breadth of lexical and syntactic reference points of b-b students simply because they are monolingual and have a firm grasp over only one language system. Yet they still have a wide range of phonetic reference points because the phonetic distinctions of a language are ingrained at a young age simply by exposure, regardless of whether or not the child become bilingual, and these m-b students lived in bilingual environments during their early childhood. The issue of having the experience of maintaining two language systems at a young age is an uncertain one for m-b students since some children raised in bilingual environments learn parts of the minority language structure and never become fully proficient while others simply never pick it up. The b-m students would have a very different set of such skills due to their bilingual capacity but monolingual background. They would have a broadened set of lexical and syntactic reference points because of their bilingualism. But they would not have quite as far-reaching phonetic comparisons since they were exposed to a monolingual environment during the most formative time period for phonetic differentiation. The same holds true for their experience with simultaneously retaining two language systems. So, by the predictions of the hypothesis and this paper’s lines of reasoning, m-b students should outperform b-m students on the phonetic parts of the test while the results from the other two sections are uncertain and obscured.
It could be argued that the method of this study is biased against bilinguals since classroom instruction tends to be geared towards monolinguals and may not adequately address the learning styles of bilinguals. However, the question at hand does not relate to how monolinguals and bilinguals learn new languages in a vacuum, but rather how they learn languages in modern society. For better or for worse, modern society includes these potentially impartial methods of instruction, and so this study should not attempt to correct for these biases.
Overall, exposure to bilingualism during early childhood seems to have only beneficial effects on children’s language skills. It broadens the range of children’s language systems without sacrificing understanding of these systems and it even perhaps heightens the children’s ability to acquire third languages with speed and ease.
Hacohen, Aviya, Jeanette C. Schaeffer. "Subject realization in early Hebrew/English bilingual acquisition: The role of crosslinguistic influence." Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (2007): 333-344.
De Houwer, Annick. "Parental language input patterns and children's bilingual use." Applied Psycholinguistics 28 (2007): 411-424.
Pearson, Barbara Zurer. "Social factors in childhood bilingualism in the United States." Applied Psycholinguistics 28 (2007): 399-410.
Yoshida, Katherine A., Janet F. Werker, Tracey C. Burns, Karen Hill. "The development of phonetic representation in bilingual and monolingual infants." Applied Psycholinguistics 28 (2007): 455-474.
Henderson, Mara. "Margaret Deuchar & Suzanne Quay, Bilingual acquisition: Theoretical implications of a case study." Language in Society 34 (2005): 141-145.
Zwanziger, Elizabeth E., Shanley E. M. Allen, Fred Genesee. "Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual acquisition: subject omission in learners of Inuktitut and English." Journal of Child Language 32 (2005): 893-909.
Dewaele, Jean-Marc, Alex Housen, & Li Wei (Ed.). (2003). Bilingualism: Beyond Basic Principles. Clevedon: Multilingualism Matters.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Blog 18 - The Great Yellowhammer State
The state of Alabama currently offers its driver’s license exam in 14 languages. Sounds progressive, great, and really inclusive, right? Well, now in the heat of this political cycle with impending elections, Senator Beason from Alabama has suggested that the exam now be restricted to English. This proposal would make Alabama one of only 6 states which offer the language only in English. I think this is a terrible idea. There’s really no reason whatsoever for this proposal.
Beason claims that his proposal is based upon safety concerns. He suggests that if people don’t know English then they won’t be able to read road signs, which would cause all sorts of problems. However, he fails to realize that nearly all road signs are universal and so English is hardly a prerequisite for understanding them. The question of safety isn’t really what’s at the heart of this issue. The Anniston Star is exactly right: “It’s obvious that this proposal is not about forcing those who speak German or Japanese to take driver’s license exams in English; it’s a one-language, one-sided issue directed at Spanish-speaking legal immigrants caught up in this election’s unfair litmus test of patriotism.” This is just another politician’s misguided attempt to address the hot-button topic of immigration, particularly illegal immigration. Beason is simply trying to make normalcy even more difficult for immigrants so as to benefit himself politically, by attacking the polarizing issue of illegal immigration.
There are two ways to address the issue of immigration: Either a) we militantly object to immigrants and try to make their lives as hard as possible or b) we accept immigrants and help them assimilate. This proposal would do the former. A driver’s license is tremendously important for assimilation as a form of identification and just driving is key to many lines of work. So by restricting access to driver’s licenses to English speakers, the state of Alabama would be restricting many jobs and opportunities to English speakers.
And this proposal wouldn’t just harm immigrants. It would hurt the state of Alabama as well. Alabama has recently been building a reputation of recruiting international industries. They therefore depend upon businessmen who often have a native tongue other than English. So, by introducing measures like this one which would alienate people with native tongues other than English, Alabama is basically shooting itself in its foot.
On a side note, Beason’s proposal wouldn’t even hinder illegal immigrants as he wants. Undocumented immigrants already can’t get driver’s licenses. So, it really doesn’t have any practical purpose whatsoever. I think it’s pretty ridiculous.
http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2007/as-editorials-1205-0-7l04s4608.htm
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071205/OPINION01/712050316/1006
http://www.clantonadvertiser.com/articles/2007/12/05/opinion/for_the_record/3-editorial.txt
http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=7451095&nav=0hBE
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/119676015549670.xml&coll=2&thispage=2
Beason claims that his proposal is based upon safety concerns. He suggests that if people don’t know English then they won’t be able to read road signs, which would cause all sorts of problems. However, he fails to realize that nearly all road signs are universal and so English is hardly a prerequisite for understanding them. The question of safety isn’t really what’s at the heart of this issue. The Anniston Star is exactly right: “It’s obvious that this proposal is not about forcing those who speak German or Japanese to take driver’s license exams in English; it’s a one-language, one-sided issue directed at Spanish-speaking legal immigrants caught up in this election’s unfair litmus test of patriotism.” This is just another politician’s misguided attempt to address the hot-button topic of immigration, particularly illegal immigration. Beason is simply trying to make normalcy even more difficult for immigrants so as to benefit himself politically, by attacking the polarizing issue of illegal immigration.
There are two ways to address the issue of immigration: Either a) we militantly object to immigrants and try to make their lives as hard as possible or b) we accept immigrants and help them assimilate. This proposal would do the former. A driver’s license is tremendously important for assimilation as a form of identification and just driving is key to many lines of work. So by restricting access to driver’s licenses to English speakers, the state of Alabama would be restricting many jobs and opportunities to English speakers.
And this proposal wouldn’t just harm immigrants. It would hurt the state of Alabama as well. Alabama has recently been building a reputation of recruiting international industries. They therefore depend upon businessmen who often have a native tongue other than English. So, by introducing measures like this one which would alienate people with native tongues other than English, Alabama is basically shooting itself in its foot.
On a side note, Beason’s proposal wouldn’t even hinder illegal immigrants as he wants. Undocumented immigrants already can’t get driver’s licenses. So, it really doesn’t have any practical purpose whatsoever. I think it’s pretty ridiculous.
http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2007/as-editorials-1205-0-7l04s4608.htm
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071205/OPINION01/712050316/1006
http://www.clantonadvertiser.com/articles/2007/12/05/opinion/for_the_record/3-editorial.txt
http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=7451095&nav=0hBE
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/119676015549670.xml&coll=2&thispage=2
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Blog 17 - To Answer Some Questions...
I was reading through the comments on some of previous posts, and saw that they addressed some really interesting issues. So, I decided to blatantly steal the format used by others and try to address some of them, starting with the most recent ones.
Blog 15:
Janessa: You bring up a good point. We always say that English is influencing other languages, and we tend to view this influence as being almost malicious. But, as you point out, many languages clearly have influenced English significantly over time. I think there is a difference, however. When other languages influence English, they either only slightly alter our words, we use their words very infrequently. With Welsh, my impression from reading that article was that people are using English words almost very sentence. There’s more to it though than just the degree of foreign languages being used. I guess here I’m specifically about American English, but because the United States is such a melting pot of ethnicities, American English is influenced by a broad spectrum of languages. However, Wales has far less diverse demographics ethnically, and so Welsh is influenced by far fewer languages. In fact, I think it’s influenced pretty exclusively by English. So I think that’s the main difference between English’s influence on Welsh and Welsh’s influence on English.
Blog 14:
Travis: I think that there’s no doubt that we definitely make subconscious distinctions which aren’t related to appearances, status, or culture when we choose how we speak. For instance, situations shift the sort of language that we use all the time. In a formal situation, we’re much more likely not to use colloquialisms or slip into our local accents. But this doesn’t always happen consciously. In fact, I’d claim that it rarely happens consciously. I’m sure there are many, many other reasons why we subconsciously change the way that we speak. I think the problem is that a lot of the time, some people aren’t good at distinguishing when some kinds of language are more appropriate than others and the introduction of all of the colloquialisms of net-lingo are making this distinction even harder.
Steve: This I a good point. I would assume the Chinese net-lingo is different from English net-lingo. Most English net-lingo is based upon English acronyms, and I don’t see much reason why Chinese speakers would use these acronyms. As to the issue of this leading to confusion in Internet profiles, I think it would cause the same amount of confusion that is caused by the fact that Americans and Chinese people already speak two different languages. I don’t think it should cause any more confusion.
Autumn: That really is a good ad :)
Blog 13:
Travis: To be entirely honest, I’m not sure what defines language. I think there are many different conflicting possibilities. So, I think that’d make a great paper topic. If you want to, then go for it!
Steve: That’s definitely a great point. I actually hadn’t thought about that at all. As for testing the hypothesis, until we get a better understanding of DNA and the innate language mechanism. Until then, I’m afraid that we’d probably need a time machine and maybe even an island or two.
Blog 15:
Janessa: You bring up a good point. We always say that English is influencing other languages, and we tend to view this influence as being almost malicious. But, as you point out, many languages clearly have influenced English significantly over time. I think there is a difference, however. When other languages influence English, they either only slightly alter our words, we use their words very infrequently. With Welsh, my impression from reading that article was that people are using English words almost very sentence. There’s more to it though than just the degree of foreign languages being used. I guess here I’m specifically about American English, but because the United States is such a melting pot of ethnicities, American English is influenced by a broad spectrum of languages. However, Wales has far less diverse demographics ethnically, and so Welsh is influenced by far fewer languages. In fact, I think it’s influenced pretty exclusively by English. So I think that’s the main difference between English’s influence on Welsh and Welsh’s influence on English.
Blog 14:
Travis: I think that there’s no doubt that we definitely make subconscious distinctions which aren’t related to appearances, status, or culture when we choose how we speak. For instance, situations shift the sort of language that we use all the time. In a formal situation, we’re much more likely not to use colloquialisms or slip into our local accents. But this doesn’t always happen consciously. In fact, I’d claim that it rarely happens consciously. I’m sure there are many, many other reasons why we subconsciously change the way that we speak. I think the problem is that a lot of the time, some people aren’t good at distinguishing when some kinds of language are more appropriate than others and the introduction of all of the colloquialisms of net-lingo are making this distinction even harder.
Steve: This I a good point. I would assume the Chinese net-lingo is different from English net-lingo. Most English net-lingo is based upon English acronyms, and I don’t see much reason why Chinese speakers would use these acronyms. As to the issue of this leading to confusion in Internet profiles, I think it would cause the same amount of confusion that is caused by the fact that Americans and Chinese people already speak two different languages. I don’t think it should cause any more confusion.
Autumn: That really is a good ad :)
Blog 13:
Travis: To be entirely honest, I’m not sure what defines language. I think there are many different conflicting possibilities. So, I think that’d make a great paper topic. If you want to, then go for it!
Steve: That’s definitely a great point. I actually hadn’t thought about that at all. As for testing the hypothesis, until we get a better understanding of DNA and the innate language mechanism. Until then, I’m afraid that we’d probably need a time machine and maybe even an island or two.
Blog 16 - Foreign Languages in the Classroom
I was just reading an article about how most American schools don’t offer foreign languages to young students. By young students, the article was referring to elementary and middle school students, who would generally be between ages 5 and 14. While some schools do have foreign language classes, the teachers tend to be sub par and these programs are few and far between. This dearth of foreign language classes seems surprising from a rational standpoint since languages are best taught to children at younger ages, but it’s altogether too familiar from my personal experience. Back in Boston, I went to a K-12 public school, which was one of the best in the area. However, we weren’t introduced to foreign languages at all until 6th grade. Even then, the classes’ quality was suspect at best. I remember that they were instituting a Chinese program my 6th grade year. Under this program I took a whole year’s worth of Chinese lessons, but I only know one word of Chinese. The only thing that I remember from that class was coloring in dragons and I’m pretty sure that didn’t help me learn Chinese. These articles seem to suggest that similarly shoddy language programs are prevalent across public elementary and middle schools across the country, which would be a truly unfortunate statement about our public education system.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, only 18% of Americans speak a language other than English, which is a depressingly low statistic. Because languages are the keys to cultures in so many cases, by not knowing other languages, Americans are effectively shutting themselves off from other cultures and peoples. In an ever-globalizing world, this inability to have effective cross-cultural understanding is unacceptable and could lead to devastating results.
I think that improving foreign language education for younger students is one of the easiest and most effective ways by which Americans can become more comfortable with other languages, and therefore other cultures. Time and time again, “research has shown that the earlier children learn a foreign language, they better the chance they become fluent.” The problem is, how do we improve these language classes? There are a couple issues.
First is the issue of a lack of qualified teachers, which is a really tough problem to address. Nonetheless it’s a crucial issue. Without qualified teachers, you can’t provide a quality education. I actually can’t think of any ways to ameliorate the situation other than to use money to attract more people towards teaching foreign languages, and thereby attracting better qualified teachers. Unfortunately, that leads to the second problem: the problem of money. Schools tend to be chronically under-funded. There is always something that needs more money and school systems have not been putting foreign language classes on high priority. As a result, schools have often been cutting language programs, preferring to keep physical education, art, and music programs. Schools need to see what they think is more important and allocate resources accordingly. Physical education, art, and music are certainly important to the overall growth of students, but are they more important than foreign languages? I think that’s a legitimate question and one that schools will have to think long and hard about. There’s no easy answer, but it’s an important question.
http://blog.mlive.com/cihttp://www2.ljworld.com/onthestreet/2007/dec/04/ith_dec3/
tpat/2007/12/most_schools_dont_offer_foreig.html
As I mentioned in an earlier post, only 18% of Americans speak a language other than English, which is a depressingly low statistic. Because languages are the keys to cultures in so many cases, by not knowing other languages, Americans are effectively shutting themselves off from other cultures and peoples. In an ever-globalizing world, this inability to have effective cross-cultural understanding is unacceptable and could lead to devastating results.
I think that improving foreign language education for younger students is one of the easiest and most effective ways by which Americans can become more comfortable with other languages, and therefore other cultures. Time and time again, “research has shown that the earlier children learn a foreign language, they better the chance they become fluent.” The problem is, how do we improve these language classes? There are a couple issues.
First is the issue of a lack of qualified teachers, which is a really tough problem to address. Nonetheless it’s a crucial issue. Without qualified teachers, you can’t provide a quality education. I actually can’t think of any ways to ameliorate the situation other than to use money to attract more people towards teaching foreign languages, and thereby attracting better qualified teachers. Unfortunately, that leads to the second problem: the problem of money. Schools tend to be chronically under-funded. There is always something that needs more money and school systems have not been putting foreign language classes on high priority. As a result, schools have often been cutting language programs, preferring to keep physical education, art, and music programs. Schools need to see what they think is more important and allocate resources accordingly. Physical education, art, and music are certainly important to the overall growth of students, but are they more important than foreign languages? I think that’s a legitimate question and one that schools will have to think long and hard about. There’s no easy answer, but it’s an important question.
http://blog.mlive.com/cihttp://www2.ljworld.com/onthestreet/2007/dec/04/ith_dec3/
tpat/2007/12/most_schools_dont_offer_foreig.html
Monday, November 26, 2007
Blog 15 - Mixing in English: Deal or No Deal?
Bilingual speakers often mix the two languages that they know, as we have discussed extensively in class. This phenomenon has been noticed by Welsh speakers who often times slip English into their speech. Language purists claim that this mixture of Welsh and English is “watering down” the Welsh language and Welsh speakers who talk in Welglish (which is an entirely made up word) sometimes feel guilty for diluting their native language. This belief that mixing languages weakens them seems to be fairly common among language purists across cultures. I remember having an analogous conversation about Spanglish earlier in this quarter. However, in Wales, many language campaigners and academics believe that by slipping English into their speech, people are actually helping sustain the Welsh language and are in fact sustaining it. They maintain that the usage of English words in Welsh is merely a natural change in the language and “the fact that a language was constantly changing proved it was alive.”
I thought that this perspective has some really interesting consequences and raises some really intriguing questions. What about languages which haven’t changed in centuries, like Icelandic? Are they still alive? Do the language purists have any merit in opposing mixing languages? Is this mixing of languages just another example of the hegemony of the English language? And then at the root of this issue, is it actually beneficial to have English slowly seeping into Welsh, or any other language for that matter?
The first question posed above challenges the claim that live languages must be dynamic and adaptive to the times. In other words, they must change to be alive. The most immediate counterexample that I could think of was the Icelandic language, which I wrote about nearly a month and a half ago. Not a single word from the oldest preserved Icelandic texts written around 1100 CE has changed. Nonetheless people continue to speak Icelandic and it’s the primary language of Iceland and so it’s almost definitely alive. However, although it seems to be a static language, I think it is changing and evolving. Although the words from 1100 CE are all the same and grammatical constructions are the same, today there are some new words in Icelandic to describe new languages. The government either uses old words or coins new words based upon Icelandic roots to describe new concepts, like the Internet or a telephone. They just don’t use other languages whatsoever. So, although Icelandic entirely resists foreign influence, it slowly adds new words and concepts. Similarly, I think that all live languages must change by necessity simply because people and societies and cultures change. By our nature, we create and innovate, and these creations and innovations often cannot be described by current constructions and vocabulary. So, languages must develop new constructions. Otherwise, the language will become obsolete, which is basically a polite way of saying that it will die. Therefore, I think that mutability is a legitimate criterion for deeming a language alive.
What about the language purists? I think because of our recognition of the importance of diversity, we tend to instinctively scoff at language purists who try to protect languages from outside influences (at least I know I do). However, they do have some valid points and concerns. Languages are an integral part of their cultures and the use of English threatens to slowly erode languages, and thereby erode their cultures. Although the use of English seems innocuous and this destructive process may be a long and gradual, it still poses a threat. Although diversity is great and commendable, it shouldn’t come at the cost of severely crippling a culture. So, the language purists have some justification in their attempts to protect their native language from foreign languages and particularly from English. After all, English has regularly been a hegemonic influence in the past because of colonial history and its widespread use.
So, the question remains, is this hegemonic influence a good thing? It certainly has benefits and costs. But do the benefits outweigh the costs? By hegemonic influence, I mean that English seeps into other languages and sometimes replaces them entirely. As for benefits, by having elements of English in a wider group of people, or just by having a wider group of people speaking English, international and intercultural communication becomes that much easier, which is tremendously important in our ever-globalizing world. Also, many would argue that this process of incorporating foreign languages is a natural one. I don’t think that this is necessarily a benefit as it’s a fallacy of logic (Argumentum ad naturam) to claim that something is good simply because it’s natural. As for costs, we have the language purists’ concerns that the introduction of English into another language diminishes that language’s integrity. By diluting the language, the introduction of English effectively dilutes the native culture as well. So I think this is the trade-off that the Welsh face by mixing English and their native language: Increased intercultural communication in exchange for giving up some amount of cultural identity.
However, I think that they can control just how much of their cultural identity they will lose by using English. As long as they are prudent about maintaining the usage of Welsh, they will retain the important parts of their Welsh identity. They just need to be careful that English doesn’t overrun their native language. If the Welsh act accordingly, as I think they will, I’m fairly sure that they will reap the benefits of using English without giving up anything significant. So, although the language purists may still not be enthralled, I think that the academics and language campaigners referenced in this article are on the right track. After all, languages do change and the world doesn’t fall apart every time that they do.
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2007/11/24/how-a-few-english-words-can-help-to-keep-our-welsh-language-alive-91466-20153846/
I thought that this perspective has some really interesting consequences and raises some really intriguing questions. What about languages which haven’t changed in centuries, like Icelandic? Are they still alive? Do the language purists have any merit in opposing mixing languages? Is this mixing of languages just another example of the hegemony of the English language? And then at the root of this issue, is it actually beneficial to have English slowly seeping into Welsh, or any other language for that matter?
The first question posed above challenges the claim that live languages must be dynamic and adaptive to the times. In other words, they must change to be alive. The most immediate counterexample that I could think of was the Icelandic language, which I wrote about nearly a month and a half ago. Not a single word from the oldest preserved Icelandic texts written around 1100 CE has changed. Nonetheless people continue to speak Icelandic and it’s the primary language of Iceland and so it’s almost definitely alive. However, although it seems to be a static language, I think it is changing and evolving. Although the words from 1100 CE are all the same and grammatical constructions are the same, today there are some new words in Icelandic to describe new languages. The government either uses old words or coins new words based upon Icelandic roots to describe new concepts, like the Internet or a telephone. They just don’t use other languages whatsoever. So, although Icelandic entirely resists foreign influence, it slowly adds new words and concepts. Similarly, I think that all live languages must change by necessity simply because people and societies and cultures change. By our nature, we create and innovate, and these creations and innovations often cannot be described by current constructions and vocabulary. So, languages must develop new constructions. Otherwise, the language will become obsolete, which is basically a polite way of saying that it will die. Therefore, I think that mutability is a legitimate criterion for deeming a language alive.
What about the language purists? I think because of our recognition of the importance of diversity, we tend to instinctively scoff at language purists who try to protect languages from outside influences (at least I know I do). However, they do have some valid points and concerns. Languages are an integral part of their cultures and the use of English threatens to slowly erode languages, and thereby erode their cultures. Although the use of English seems innocuous and this destructive process may be a long and gradual, it still poses a threat. Although diversity is great and commendable, it shouldn’t come at the cost of severely crippling a culture. So, the language purists have some justification in their attempts to protect their native language from foreign languages and particularly from English. After all, English has regularly been a hegemonic influence in the past because of colonial history and its widespread use.
So, the question remains, is this hegemonic influence a good thing? It certainly has benefits and costs. But do the benefits outweigh the costs? By hegemonic influence, I mean that English seeps into other languages and sometimes replaces them entirely. As for benefits, by having elements of English in a wider group of people, or just by having a wider group of people speaking English, international and intercultural communication becomes that much easier, which is tremendously important in our ever-globalizing world. Also, many would argue that this process of incorporating foreign languages is a natural one. I don’t think that this is necessarily a benefit as it’s a fallacy of logic (Argumentum ad naturam) to claim that something is good simply because it’s natural. As for costs, we have the language purists’ concerns that the introduction of English into another language diminishes that language’s integrity. By diluting the language, the introduction of English effectively dilutes the native culture as well. So I think this is the trade-off that the Welsh face by mixing English and their native language: Increased intercultural communication in exchange for giving up some amount of cultural identity.
However, I think that they can control just how much of their cultural identity they will lose by using English. As long as they are prudent about maintaining the usage of Welsh, they will retain the important parts of their Welsh identity. They just need to be careful that English doesn’t overrun their native language. If the Welsh act accordingly, as I think they will, I’m fairly sure that they will reap the benefits of using English without giving up anything significant. So, although the language purists may still not be enthralled, I think that the academics and language campaigners referenced in this article are on the right track. After all, languages do change and the world doesn’t fall apart every time that they do.
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2007/11/24/how-a-few-english-words-can-help-to-keep-our-welsh-language-alive-91466-20153846/
Monday, November 12, 2007
Blog 14 - BKA (Better Known As)...
In the new computer age, young people are beginning to develop and cultivate a new form of language: so called “net-lingo.” To all the e-mailers and IMers reading this, you all know the meanings of various abbreviations like lol, btw, and rofl among many, many others. These shorthand methods using abbreviations seem to have risen out of a desire to be more efficient at the computer and spend less time typing to convey a message. These abbreviations and the choppy language seem to leaking into more formal writing. Even in schools, some people have begun to notice “more of these abbreviations creeping into students’ answer sheets” and into formal writing. However, people who aren’t acquainted with this “net-lingo” seem perturbed by this unconscious and instinctive use of casual abbreviation. As with everything, there is a time and place for “net-lingo” and there’s also a time and place for more formal language and constructions.
Which leads to the interesting fact that people talk differently when they talk to different people. I find myself doing this often. When I talk to friends from within the city of Boston, I relax my language immensely and let the beast of my Boston accent out of its cage. However, when I talk to friends of mine from the suburbs, I retighten my language, and speak without a discernable accent (I think/hope). This shift is entirely subconscious and instinctive. I’m not trying to speak differently; I just do. I notice my mom doing similar things. My mother knows more than 5 languages, 3 of which are Indian languages and Hindi is her native tongue. When she speaks English to Americans she speaks without almost any accent, only occasionally using British-English intonations and pronunciations (for example, she says Aah-loo-min-ium instead of Ah-loo-min-um). But, when she talks to other Indians, she speaks English with a massive Indian accent, which you might expect Apu to use on the Simpsons. I asked her about that shift once, and she was actually unaware of it. People do the same thing by switching between languages automatically. When I talk to my parents in Hindi, I don’t do so consciously. I think several people in class have mentioned encountering this phenomenon in their own experiences. But I guess a lot of people haven’t yet developed the skills or instinct to use more formal language when it’s appropriate. Instead, because some people are so accustomed to typing without capital letters or with crazy abbreviations, they type accordingly in all messages that they write on the computer, whether they’re writing an email to their friends or to their teachers.
I think another interesting aspect to this new “net-lingo” is that in some ways, people are reshaping English by their use of the Internet. There are even dictionaries for all of the abbreviations used in emails and messages (including one’s which I’ve never heard of and would never use, like GSYJDWYMH, which apparently means Good Seeing You, Just Don’t Wear Your Monkey Hat; I don’t get it either). There’s currently a fairly standardized set of abbreviations and abbreviating techniques, but on the Internet the youth is revolutionizing these techniques and processes. Fortunately, as the Hindu article notes, “The language [of English] is unlikely to ‘lose’ anything by the new changes, though. ‘The resilience and adaptability of English is its strength.”
http://www.hindu.com/2007/11/11/stories/2007111150890200.htm
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/abbreviations.htm
http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm
Which leads to the interesting fact that people talk differently when they talk to different people. I find myself doing this often. When I talk to friends from within the city of Boston, I relax my language immensely and let the beast of my Boston accent out of its cage. However, when I talk to friends of mine from the suburbs, I retighten my language, and speak without a discernable accent (I think/hope). This shift is entirely subconscious and instinctive. I’m not trying to speak differently; I just do. I notice my mom doing similar things. My mother knows more than 5 languages, 3 of which are Indian languages and Hindi is her native tongue. When she speaks English to Americans she speaks without almost any accent, only occasionally using British-English intonations and pronunciations (for example, she says Aah-loo-min-ium instead of Ah-loo-min-um). But, when she talks to other Indians, she speaks English with a massive Indian accent, which you might expect Apu to use on the Simpsons. I asked her about that shift once, and she was actually unaware of it. People do the same thing by switching between languages automatically. When I talk to my parents in Hindi, I don’t do so consciously. I think several people in class have mentioned encountering this phenomenon in their own experiences. But I guess a lot of people haven’t yet developed the skills or instinct to use more formal language when it’s appropriate. Instead, because some people are so accustomed to typing without capital letters or with crazy abbreviations, they type accordingly in all messages that they write on the computer, whether they’re writing an email to their friends or to their teachers.
I think another interesting aspect to this new “net-lingo” is that in some ways, people are reshaping English by their use of the Internet. There are even dictionaries for all of the abbreviations used in emails and messages (including one’s which I’ve never heard of and would never use, like GSYJDWYMH, which apparently means Good Seeing You, Just Don’t Wear Your Monkey Hat; I don’t get it either). There’s currently a fairly standardized set of abbreviations and abbreviating techniques, but on the Internet the youth is revolutionizing these techniques and processes. Fortunately, as the Hindu article notes, “The language [of English] is unlikely to ‘lose’ anything by the new changes, though. ‘The resilience and adaptability of English is its strength.”
http://www.hindu.com/2007/11/11/stories/2007111150890200.htm
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/abbreviations.htm
http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Blog 13 - Whale Songs
In keeping with the discussion of non-human species that use forms of language, I thought it would be interesting to check out an article about the methods that whales use to communicate. Researchers from the University of Queensland’s Humpback Whale Research Collaboration (HARC) project claim that they have discovered at least 34 different types of whale calls. The researchers recorded the whales’ sounds by attaching underwater microphones to buoys about 1 kilometer off of the coast of Queensland. Because sight and smell are relatively limited underwater, the scientists postulate that marine animals depend upon sounds far more than land-based relatives. They expected to find about 10 different vocalizations. However, because the whales’ calls apparently vary both in length and in sound, they have a fairly larger repertoire. Their calls range from less than a second to over 10 seconds. The whales also produced high-pitched squeaks, shrieks, cries, purrs, groans, low yaps, and wops. Although only male humpback whales are famed for their “whale songs,” females and calves also communicate through these sorts of sounds.
Interestingly, the researchers think that they have been able to decode some of the whales’ communication. For instance, low purring by males seems to be an attempt to woo desirable females. High frequency screams seem to be associated with disagreements, especially as males try to escort females during migration. The wop sounds seem to be used by mothers and calves to identify their locations to one another. Although Dr. Rebecca Dunlop, one of the main researchers tied to the project, “stopped short of defining the whale communication as language,” she still noted that their communication shared some commonalities with human conversation. Which leads to the question of how long ago was the concept of communication in the form of some primitive set of verbal symbols developed in the brain? Also, the researchers’ investigation into the whales’ communicative abilities opens up the question of whether or not the skills of communication and language are evolved.
Scientists currently believe that whales’ and humans’ share common ancestors from 50-60 million years ago. I can then think of two possible reasons why whales and humans share some communicative abilities. Either a) mental constructs existed in our ancestors’ minds 50-60 million years ago or b) whales’ and humans’ ancestors developed these constructs independently. This second theory seems rather far fetched, because the random generation through evolution of two complicated and similar mental constructs seems fairly unlikely. So again, some species other than humans seem to share our capacity for communication. Nonetheless, it still seems to be an issue of degree. The researchers for HARC seemed amazed by the whales’ “vocabulary” of 34 vocalizations, but humans easily accumulate vocabularies of over tens of thousands of words. So perhaps the only thing separating our communication from the whales’ is the complexity of our language. But if it’s a question of degree, where do we draw the line? Where does animalistic communication end and human language start?
Pranav
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSYD59010
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-07-voa15.cfm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22714366-2,00.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html
Interestingly, the researchers think that they have been able to decode some of the whales’ communication. For instance, low purring by males seems to be an attempt to woo desirable females. High frequency screams seem to be associated with disagreements, especially as males try to escort females during migration. The wop sounds seem to be used by mothers and calves to identify their locations to one another. Although Dr. Rebecca Dunlop, one of the main researchers tied to the project, “stopped short of defining the whale communication as language,” she still noted that their communication shared some commonalities with human conversation. Which leads to the question of how long ago was the concept of communication in the form of some primitive set of verbal symbols developed in the brain? Also, the researchers’ investigation into the whales’ communicative abilities opens up the question of whether or not the skills of communication and language are evolved.
Scientists currently believe that whales’ and humans’ share common ancestors from 50-60 million years ago. I can then think of two possible reasons why whales and humans share some communicative abilities. Either a) mental constructs existed in our ancestors’ minds 50-60 million years ago or b) whales’ and humans’ ancestors developed these constructs independently. This second theory seems rather far fetched, because the random generation through evolution of two complicated and similar mental constructs seems fairly unlikely. So again, some species other than humans seem to share our capacity for communication. Nonetheless, it still seems to be an issue of degree. The researchers for HARC seemed amazed by the whales’ “vocabulary” of 34 vocalizations, but humans easily accumulate vocabularies of over tens of thousands of words. So perhaps the only thing separating our communication from the whales’ is the complexity of our language. But if it’s a question of degree, where do we draw the line? Where does animalistic communication end and human language start?
Pranav
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSYD59010
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-07-voa15.cfm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22714366-2,00.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
