Bilingualism and How Communication Develops - Dissertation Example

BILINGUALISM INTRODUCTION Humans have a unique ability to learn more than one language; and it has been theorised that individuals who speak more than one language may have an advantage of greater cognitive flexibility and control of one’s own higher mental processes. This has not been the general consensus, however, during the earlier part of this century it was commonly believed that speaking more than one language limited the available storage or space needed for other cognitive functions. Some of the earliest studies examining effects of bilingualism among children concluded that bilingual children experienced mental confusion, language retardation, lower reading scores as well as mental conflict. However, later evidence suggests that knowledge of more than one language may even improve cognitive flexibility Additional benefits of being bilingual include metalinguistic awareness, more efficient learning strategies, heightened problem solving abilities, better creative thinking, and less anxiety than monolinguals. This paper aims to discuss and analyse in detail the phenomenon of bilingualism, its determinants, how it impacts communication, individual’s cognition and learning experience. FORMATION OF LANGUAGE: NEUROLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE Our knowledge of brain development and neuronal connections suggests that there is an optimal period of time for language development, which has been found regardless of the language being learned. Even when a second language is learned after this critical window of six or seven years of age, research has shown the development of neuronal systems sub-serving the second language; and this subsystem may enhance executive functions (Ratey, 2002). The ability to learn a language involves many areas of the brain. The association areas located in the parietal lobe with connections to the temporal and occipital areas are involved in language experiences by functionally facilitating a variety of language related behaviours such as vision, body awareness, touch, spatial orientation, verbal comprehension, localisation of objects in space, abstract and complex cognitive functions of mathematical reasoning and formulation of logical thoughts stemming from visual experiences (Lezak, 1997). This area of the brain was termed this association area in the parietal lobe as the “association area of association areas” while others named this association area the “heteromodal cortex” (Lezak, 1997). The right hemisphere is also involved when organising a narrative, an expression and during recognition of emotion in the tone of voice as well as regulation of rhythm and intonation of speech. The specialisation of the left hemisphere in language processing, neuronal systems used for grammatical, semantic and lexical processing have been found to be affected by early language experiences (Carlson, 2001). Studies also indicate that right hemisphere involvement is present since much of the language processing requires spatial location, motion; and specialisation and differentiation of these neuronal circuits are related to the proficiency of the language. It is known that verbal behaviour is lateralised and the functions of the left hemisphere are more specialised for the analysis of sequential stimuli such as speech. Speech consists of sounds arranged into sequences of words. Cortical language areas primarily associated with localisation of language related functions are on the left hemisphere around the Sylvian fissure, inferior frontal lobe which harbors Broca’s area, and Wernicke’s area, located in the posterior temporal lobe (Carlson, 2001). Additionally, the left hemisphere is also specialised in the control of sequential voluntary movement therefore, its role in the localisation of neuronal circuits is of outmost importance in the production, comprehension and perception of speech (Carlson, 2001). Although the left hemisphere is concerned with most of the language functioning, it is noteworthy to indicate that the right hemisphere is also involved in speech. For example, the right hemisphere is involved in understanding prosody in speech (Carlson, 2001). Researchers suggest that bilinguals, as a group, tend to be less left lateralised than their monolingual counterparts in language functioning (Messer, 1994). The age hypothesis argues that if the second language is acquired after puberty, it would be lateralised to a lesser degree. Other hypotheses indicate that the right hemisphere is more involved during early acquisition of second language and progressively becomes less involved as the switch to the left hemisphere occurs. In coordinate bilinguals, those who use two languages independently from each other, there is a larger degree of right-side lateralisation for the two languages. Brain imaging studies have found differences between monolinguals and bilinguals. A study using whole-brain unbiased objective technique known as voxel-based morphometry investigated structural plasticity among bilinguals and demonstrated increased grey matter density in the left inferior parietal lobe among bilinguals when compared to monolingual (Mechelli et al., 2004). The increased grey matter density in this region was also found to be associated with increased second language ability and decreased with increasing age of acquisition of the second language. Inferior parietal lobe activation measured by magnetoencephalography was associated with learning when subjects learned names and/or meaning of unfamiliar objects (Mechelli et al., 2004). The inferior parietal lobe appears to be involved in learning of novel words and is implicated as part of a working memory mechanism (Mechelli et al., 2004). Therefore, the parietal lobe is implicated in the acquisition process of new information such as learning of a new language, in turn contributing to an increasing number of synaptic connections and modification of neuronal circuitry in this region of the brain. SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: PROCESS ANALYSIS Social influences under which a second language is learned define the various reasons behind the learning of a second language. Two orientations have been described as reasons for learning a second language: 1) learning for pragmatic purposes and 2) learning to increase one’s own knowledge about a different language with intent to integrate it into a new dominant culture in order to assimilate into a community (Messer, 1994). The former is termed by the authors as instrumental motivation whereas the latter is termed integrative motivation. The two phenomena are not mutually exclusive and tend to occur as a combination of both since it may be very practical to learn a second language in order to assimilate into a larger cultural group. It is of great importance for scientists to understand how bilinguals utilise and comprehend two different languages (Kotz, 2001). Is knowledge for the two languages stored in one system, or is it two separate systems that govern the storage and maintenance of the languages? The hierarchical model and the revised hierarchical model explain that bilinguals use “mapping of form to meaning” (Kotz, 2001). This model proposes an involvement of two separate representations of language and further indicates that there is an interaction of the two systems, the lexical and the conceptual. In other words, the word form is represented separately in the native language (L1) and a second language (L2) whereas word meaning is represented in a common conceptual system of both L1 and L2 (Hoff, 2005). The hierarchical model also posits that the interaction between the two lexical level representations and between the lexical level representations and the conceptual representations fluctuates as a function of fluency in the second language (Kotz, 2001). Other theories of acquisition of two linguistic systems have been suggested. In Dulay and Burt proposed the L2=L1 hypothesis of mental organisation of language (Madrid & Garcia, 1981). This hypothesis specifically addresses learning of a second language early in life, particularly during childhood. The authors suggest that bilingual children organise their language and make generalisations about its structure in the same way as children learning their first language. Furthermore, this hypothesis asserts that language learning is innate and that a specific kind of mental organisation results in the use of particular processing strategies for language acquisition (Madrid & Garcia, 1981). Another theory of second language acquisition is the language transfer theory (Madrid & Garcia, 1981). The premise of the theory is that learning a second language during childhood, the child utilises existing language structures from the native language into the learning of a second language (Madrid & Garcia, 1981). The mental organisation hypothesis asserts that the interaction between the two languages is minimal during learning of a second language whereas the transfer theory of learning suggests that the learning of a second language depends to a certain degree on the structures of the first language. The language transfer theory was supported by Madrid and Garcia (1981) in the study of Spanish-English bilinguals and English monolinguals in the frequency and quality of errors between the two groups. This study supported the transfer hypothesis in that “new constructions in a second language will reflect previously acquired constructions strategies already formed during native language learning” (Madrid & Garcia, 1981, p.624). BILINGUALISM AND ITS CLASSIFICATION Some authors identify six separate but related dimensions that represent the bilingual phenomenon. The first dimension is concerned with the competency of the languages acquired by the bilingual individual. For instance, a so-called “balanced bilingual” is presumed to possess equal language ability in both languages. Another term, the dominant bilingual, describes a bilingual individual who possesses a superior facility in one of the languages. Another group in this classification is the “coordinate bilingual.” This is a person who acquires two languages in separate environments and the words of each language have their separate meaning. The third group of cognitive organisation of language consists of “compound bilinguals.” These individuals acquire two languages under the same context and use them simultaneously, thus, being able to use two different language descriptions to name one object or idea. An interesting phenomenon is a related type of “coordinate bilingual” where the person tends to use words from the dominant language to generate words in the non-dominant language. The next classification dimension is concerned with cognitive organisation, specifically, the context under which the second language acquisition occurred, as these factors may influence cognitive functioning. Age of acquisition consists of three groups as well: 1) childhood bilingual; 2) adolescent bilingual; and 3) adult bilingual. The “childhood bilingual” is defined as learning two languages prior to age 11 and is further divided into two separate categories: 1) infant or “simultaneous childhood bilingual” acquires two languages concurrently from the incipience of language ability; 2) the “consecutive childhood bilingual” acquires the second language following the elementary acquisition of the native language (Hoff, 2005). Acquisition of a second language between ages 11 and 17 years is described as “adolescent bilingual” whereas a person learning a second language after age 17 years of age is considered an “adult bilingual.” There is also a less specific classification of bilingualism that includes the early and the late bilinguals where the former identifies a person who acquires a second language during the pre adolescent stage and the latter describes a person who learns a second language after age 11 and following the acquisition of their native language. The next dimension emphasises the development of different forms of bilingualism that is associated with sociocultural status of the languages. If knowledge of a second language provides or facilitates a persons social functioning or cognitive functioning and does not negatively interfere with previously acquired skills in the first language, the person is considered to be at the additive end of the spectrum whereas if the second language is acquired and negatively influences skills learned in the native language, one is at the subtractive end of the continuum. The last classification dimension deals with bilinguals group membership and their cultural identity. Generally, the bilingual is also a bicultural individual as he is immersed within his own ethnic group as well as the dominant culture. However, a person who identifies himself with only one culture but may also be bilingual, is a monocultural individual. The acculturated bilingual is a person who is immersed only in the second, the dominant culture, and identifies with his own ethnic group. Several stages of bilingualism have also been described and are associated with the length of time since the introduction of the second language and its usage. Three distinct stages are identified: 1) the “incipient bilingual” is one who has been exposed to the second language for 3 to 5 years, 2) the “transitional bilingual” is a person who has been exposed to the second language for approximately 6 to 12 years, and 3) the “extended bilingual” has been exposed to the second language for about 15 or more years (Hoff, 2005). Of course other factors besides the duration of exposure to the second language are involved. For some individuals, influential factors may include motivation to learn, the urgency to acquire a second language in order to adapt to the larger society as well as the context under which the language is acquired. For example, those immigrating to the United Kingdom and settling outside their cultural community may acquire the second language sooner than their counterparts who settle within their ethnic enclaves. Qualitative differences in language facility may exist due to these various environmental and internal components of the individual. BILINGUALISM, COMMUNICATION AND COGNITION The concept of being bilingual is complex, and as it is evident from the above discussion literature on bilingualism uses dozens of terms to describe the various types of bilingualism. According to Wei (2010), the terms explaining the phenomenon of bilingualismvary from balanced bilingual to analyse an individual whose two languages are approximately equale in terms of proficiency, to incipient bilingual to characterise a person who is just starting to learn a new language. In the earlier days of bilingualism research, it was believed that knowing more than one language interfered with cognitive development. Therefore, bilingual children were thought to have intellectual and academic deficiencies. However, a seminal study by Peal and Lambert (1962) found that bilingual children were not inherently at a disadvantage when other factors like socioeconomic status were taken into consideration. In fact, their study was one of the first to acknowledge the potential advantages of being bilingual: This study has found that bilinguals performed better than monolinguals on verbal and nonverbal intelligence tests. These results were not expected because they constitute a clear reversal of previously reported findings…(p. 20). Peal and Lambert continued by saying that there is no question that a bilingual child is intellectually superior to his or her monolingual counterpart. Since the appearance of this 1962 article, there have been numerous studies illustrating the inherent benefits of bilingualism. Besides the positive effect of bilingualism on general intelligence (Peal & Lambert, 1962), there have been numerous studies on the relationship between bilingualism or multilingualism and metalinguistic awareness, cognitive flexibility and processing mechanisms, and more efficient learning strategies (Wilson & Sperber, 2006). There have also been studies supporting the idea that bilingualism helps peoples brains stay young and active in old age (Bialystok, 2006), that bilinguals can see the world through a different perspective, are better at problem solving, and have a more democratic disposition. It has also been posited that bilingualism has a positive effect on creative thinking, and even that multilinguals are less anxious than their monolingual counterparts (Hoff, 2005). These studies support the notion that language learning is essential not only for general education, but also for the development of further cognitive dimensions. As stated in Sanz (2000), bilingualism has an effect on how subsequent languages are learned. Metalinguistic awareness has been shown to play a role in successful language acquisition. Metalinguistic knowledge acts as an advanced organiser, thus, speeds up the language acquisition process. Several researchers, including Bialystok (2006) and Thomas (1992) illustrate that bilinguals possess a better understanding of metalanguage. Metalanguage can be explained as precise knowledge of language information or the organisation of language systems. This precise knowledge increases the dynamics of learning process of subsequent languages, and according to Thomas (1992) assists bilingual individuals to process and develop language in a more structured system. In his 2006 analysis Bialystok explains that it is possible that children normally pay more attention to the systematic features of the language if they deal with two different language systems. Bialystok’s position is supported with finding from the study conducted by Nayak et al. (1990), in which bilingual individuals outperformed monolingual individuals in learning the syntax of an artificial language. Nayak et al. (1990) explained that if individuals have an understanding of how more than one language is structured, they were more likely to successfully acquireand include another language system into their cognitive system Bialystok and Majumder (1998) found that these concepts of bilingualism could extend to nonverbal advantages. Their study showed that balanced bilinguals outperformed unbalanced bilinguals and monolinguals on non-linguistic tasks, supporting the idea that people with a certain level of bilingualism have a more developed sense of selective attention and control of processing. Literature on bilingualism indicates several studies, such as Nayak et al. (1990), indicated that individuals learning second language simultaneously become aware of the process of language learning. Therefore, individuals who already have previous language experience have more potential to understand and acquire new language. Bilingualism has an effect on learning the vocabulary of subsequent languages, as shown in Keshavarz and Astaneh (2004). There were three groups of participants - two bilingual groups (30 Turkish-Persian and 30 Armenian-Persian) and one Persian monolingual group - and the researchers were comparing the acquisition of English vocabulary. In this study, the bilingual participants outperformed the monolingual participants with English vocabulary acquisition. According to the authors, “The results showed that bilingualism has a more positive effect on third languages vocabulary achievement when the first two languages are taught formally” (p. 300), providing additional support for the benefits of biliteracy. These strong finding can be explained with the fact that children learn reading and writing in their native language, therefore they have better understanding of the need and whole purpose of reading and writing. Bialystok (2006) indicates this tendency as the symbolic system to encode the language (p.589). Furthermore, if the language writing systems of the two languages are similar, children can transfer what they already know about form-meaning connections (the semantic value of the letters or words) in their native language to their second language. In further support of the importance of biliteracy, Sanz (2000) argued that “biliteracy rather than ‘oral bilingualism’ to be the factor determining cognitive abilities” (p. 38), thus facilitating language acquisition. From the critical perspective, there has been a fair amount of support for language differentiation in young bilinguals. Although some have seen code-mixing as evidence for a unitary system, these is now overwhelming evidence that children as young as 2 years old use their two languages differently depending on the context of interaction. Young children have been shown to be keenly aware of the language proficiency or preference of the interlocutor, and will accommodate their language use accordingly. Genesee et al. (1995) found that, when 2-year-old bilingual children converse in their non-dominant language with a stranger they have not met, the children are able to “adjust their patterns of language use to accommodate unfamiliar interlocutors with particular language characteristics” (p. 441). Children are able to differentiate their grammars with different interlocutors, which would not be possible if they only had one unified grammar from which to draw their languages. Here one sees overwhelming evidence that languages in a bilingual are differentiated at an early age. REFERENCES Bialystok, E. (2006). The impact of bilingualism on language literacy development. In T.K. Bhatia & W.C. Ritchie (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 577- 601). Maiden, MA: Blackwell. Bialystok, E. & Majumder, S. (1998). The relationship between bilingualism and the development of cognitive processes in problem solving. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 69-85. Carlson, N. R. (2001). Physiology of Behavior (7th ed.). Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon Genesee, Fred, Nicoladis, Elena, and Paradis, Johanne. (1995). Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language 22:611-631. Hoff, E. (2005) Language development (3rd Eds.) Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth Keshavarz, M.H., & Astaneh, H. (2004). The impact of bilinguality on the learning of English vocabulary as a foreign language (L3). Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(4), 295-303. Kotz, S. A. (2001). Neurolinguistic evidence for bilingual language representation: A comparison of reaction times and event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, Special Issue, 4(2), 143-154. Lezak, M. D. (1997). Neuropsychological Assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press Madrid, D. & Garcia, E. E. (1981). Development of negation in bilingual Spanish/English and monolingual English speakers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 624-631. McLaughlin, B., & Nayak, N. (1989). Processing a new language: Does knowing other languages make a difference? In H.W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Interlingual Processes, (pp. 5-16). Tubingen: Gunter Narr. Mechelli, A., Crinion, J.T., Noppeney, U., O’Doherty, J., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. & Price, C. (2004). Structural plasticity in the bilingual brain. Nature, 431, 757. Messer, D. J. (1994) The Development of Communication: from Social Interaction to Language. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Nayak, H., Hansen, N., Krueger, N., & McLaughlin, B. (1990). Language learning strategies in monolingual and multilingual adults. Language Learning, 40, 221 - 244. Peal, E., & Lambert, W. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs 76 (Whole No. 546). Ratey, J. (2002). A user’s guide to the brain: perception, attention, and the four theaters of the brain. New York: Random House, Inc. Sanz, C. (2000). Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from Catalonia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21,23 - 44. Thomas, J. (1992). Metalinguistic awareness in second- and third-language learning. In R.J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 531 - 545). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Wei, L. (2001). The Bilingualism Reader. New York: Routledge Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2006). Relevance theory. In G. Ward & L. Horn (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607-632). Oxford, Blackwell. Read More