The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism

Tej K. Bhatia, William C. Ritchie, Tej K. Bhatia, William C. Ritchie

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781118332412
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

**Honored as a 2013 Choice Outstanding Academic Title** Comprising state-of-the-art research, this substantially expanded and revised Handbook discusses the latest global and interdisciplinary issues across bilingualism and multilingualism.

• Includes the addition of ten new authors to the contributor team, and coverage of seven new topics ranging from global media to heritage language learning
• Provides extensively revised coverage of bilingual and multilingual communities, polyglot aphasia, creolization, indigenization, linguistic ecology and endangered languages, multilingualism, and forensic linguistics
• Brings together a global team of internationally-renowned researchers from different disciplines
• Covers a wide variety of topics, ranging from neuro- and psycho-linguistic research to studies of media and psychological counseling
• Assesses the latest issues in worldwide linguistics, including the phenomena and the conceptualization of 'hyperglobalization', and emphasizes geographical centers of global conflict and commerce

Part I
Overview and Foundations

Introduction

TEJ K. BHATIA

The investigation of plurilingualism is a broad and complex field, which includes the study of the nature of the individual plurilingual’s knowledge and use of two (or more) languages as well as the broader social and cultural consequences of the widespread use of more than one language in a given society. The two chapters that make up Part I provide a general orientation to this complex field.

In Chapter 1 – ‘Bilingualism and Multilingualism: Some Central Concepts’ – John Edwards provides a bird’s-eye view of the field by examining a wide range of issues that are addressed in greater depth in later, more specialized chapters of the book. Edwards opens his chapter with a description of ways in which individual and societal plurilingualism differ and how societal plurilingualism arises. He then proposes a framework for classifying instances of societal plurilingualism and discusses a number of ways in which these cases of plurilingualism have been dealt with in these societies. Edwards then addresses issues in the study of individual plurilingualism, including popular questions about the capacity to acquire more than one language, ways in which degree of bilingualism has been measured, the relationship of bilingualism to general intelligence and cognitive development, and the process of becoming bilingual (that is, second-language acquisition). Finally, Edwards discusses the relationship between language and social identity in instances of plurilingualism.

Li Wei’s Chapter 2, ‘Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Bilingualism and Multilingualism Research,’ opens with the presentation of three presuppositions required for the coexistence of more than one language in a given society: that there are different languages in the world at large; that speakers of different languages (and the languages themselves) come into contact in a particular sense; and that the usual consequence of this contact is plurilingualism both in individual speakers and in the society in which they interact. He then moves on to discussions of three different approaches to the study of plurilingualism and their accompanying methods – the psycholinguistic, linguistic, and sociolinguistic approaches – and calls for the development of a combined transdisciplinary approach to the study of plurilingualism in the future. (It should be noted that this chapter is intended to complement – rather than replace – François Grosjean’s Chapter 2 in the first edition.)

1

Bilingualism and Multilingualism: Some Central Concepts

JOHN EDWARDS

Introduction

Bilingualism and multilingualism have both de facto existences and important places in the psychological, political, and social debates that define social and ethnic groups, communities, and regions. Very widespread phenomena, they arise for a number of well-understood reasons; in the main, however, they are also quite unremarkable phenomena, fuelled by necessity up to, but rarely beyond, appropriately useful levels of competence. They imply both heightened and lessened opportunities for interpersonal and intercultural exchange: multilingual capacities at an individual level can obviously broaden possibilities, but a world of many languages is also one in which communicative problems exist. In such a world, lingua francas and translation are required.¹

While almost everyone knows at least a few words in other languages, we generally require a little more competence than that before we are willing to acknowledge bilingual or multilingual ability. Where, however, to draw the line? Where does bilingualism ‘start’? And how are we to accommodate different levels of fluency? Still, there are those who we confidently put in the monolingual category. And, at the other end of this linguistic spectrum, there are those who have virtually maternal multilingual capabilities. After rigorous self-examination – of which language emerges spontaneously at times of emergency or elevated emotion, which variety is dreamt in, which is associated with the earliest memories – George Steiner (1992), for example, claimed equal fluency in English, French, and German. As in other social arenas, however, it is the grayer areas between extremes that are at once more common and more interesting.

As noted, competence in more than one language can be approached from social as well as individual perspectives, and these need not be as neatly connected as might first be thought. While it is true that a country (or any other recognizably bordered region) full of multilingual people is itself multilingual in a broad sense, it may nevertheless officially sanction only one or two varieties and thus, in another sense, be something less than multilingual. Conversely, a country may be officially bilingual or multilingual and yet most of its citizens may fall into the monolingual basket. Many states in Africa have two official languages (usually a strong indigenous variety and a widely used European one) for highly heterogeneous and multilingual populations. In Canada, too, there is official recognition of two languages, but the situation on the ground hardly resembles the linguistically rich, varied, and – above all – interpenetrating settings common in Africa. Both personal and social manifestations of bilingualism are of course important, but it should be noted that the emphases are quite different: a thoroughgoing discussion of individual bilingualism involves, for example, linguistic and psycholinguistic dimensions which figure much less prominently, if at all, at the social level where other dimensions – historical, educational, political, and so on – arise for consideration.

There are important differences between individual bilingualism and collective or social bilingualism, regardless of whether or not the latter is officially endorsed. In many settings, ancient and modern, the latter is an enduring quantity. Individual bilingualism, on the other hand, may be less permanent, often reflecting a generational way-station on the road between two monolingualisms. Thus, the classic pattern for immigrants to the United States has been bilingualism (mother tongue and English) by the second generation and English monolingualism by the third. A more enduring collective bilingualism rests upon continuing necessities which become absent among most immigrant populations. Where these involve different functions and domains of use for each language, the situation is often referred to as diglossia. Of course, even stability is relative. The French–English diglossia that prevailed in England after the Norman conquest eventually broke down, for example.

Arrangements of societal bilingualism vary across contexts. The passage of the Official Languages Act (1969), which legally underpins French and English in Canada, was preceded by an official investigatory commission. Paying special attention to the linguistic situations in Belgium, Finland, Switzerland, and South Africa, the commissioners closely examined the so-called ‘personality’ and ‘territorial’ principles relating to bilingualism. In South Africa, language rights are seen to inhere in individuals, wherever they may live within a state; the Belgian territorial principle, however, accords official status by region – Flemish in the north, French in the south. The commission opted for the application of the personality principle in Canada, even though official-language minorities were (and still are) small in all provinces except Quebec and New Brunswick, a fact that would seem to point towards a territorial disposition. The sensitive and sometimes volatile relationship between the two ‘founding peoples,’ however, was a prime consideration. The recommendation, therefore, was for federal bilingualism and the provision of bilingual services at the provincial level – but only Quebec, Ontario, and New Brunswick were to become ‘officially’ bilingual.

Today, however, only New Brunswick has proclaimed itself bilingual. Indeed, broader hopes for Canada-wide bilingualism have faded, with the country steadily moving towards a Belgian-like territoriality: French in Quebec and English elsewhere, with a bilingual ‘belt’ in those regions of Ontario and, especially, New Brunswick that abut Quebec. The assimilation of francophones outside Quebec, and that province’s rejection of bilingualism, reflect the importance of the political and social frameworks within which stable bilingualism occurs. Policies of social engineering in democratic states must ultimately, it seems, be reconciled with widespread popular perceptions of social reality and self-interest. When perceptions differ among powerful ethnic groups – in Canada, the anglophones, francophones, aboriginals, and ‘allophones’ are all central players, though no group is itself monolithic – then centrally inspired conceptions of bilingualism and diglossia are seen to be quite delicate (see Edwards 1995, 2009).

A Multilingual World

Multilingual realities arise in a number of ways. Immigrants, whether settlers or invaders, bring languages into contact and sometimes, as with imperialist and colonial expansion, it is unnecessary for many people to physically move; their language may make its presence felt through military, religious, or economic force requiring relatively small numbers of soldiers, merchants, bureaucrats, and missionaries. Some cultures have had more explicit policies here than have others – compare, for instance, the mission civilisatrice of the French with the more pragmatic attitude of the English (see below for discussion) – but all imperial powers have, directly or indirectly, made their languages attractive and sometimes necessary to conquered or colonized groups. The languages of expansionist regimes often become intertwined with pragmatic advantage and cultural prestige at a local level, and these factors often long outlive the original dominating influence: the continued adherence to European varieties which exists in former colonial areas is an example here.

Multilingualism can also arise as a result of political union among different linguistic groups: Switzerland incorporates German, Italian, Romansch, and French populations; Belgium unites (sometimes precariously) French and Flemish speakers; Canada has English and French ‘charter’ groups. In addition to this sort of political association, there are also multilingual federations based upon more arbitrary arrangements, often the result of colonial boundary marking and country creation; modern examples are found in Africa and Asia. Multilingualism is also commonly observed in border areas: two North American examples can be found along the Mexican–American border in the south, and on that between New England and Quebec in the north.

These are the primary circumstances underpinning multilingual arrangements, but they are not the only ones. Cultural and educational motivations can also expand linguistic repertoires – not only on an individual basis, but in more widespread fashion as well. Also relevant here is the degree to which a language community is open to the use of ‘its’ variety by others. Consider the differences between the English and the French in this regard: the latter have traditionally been much more possessive of their language and, while working hard to bring it to those unfortunate enough not to already speak it (the mission civilisatrice, again), have also been zealous in protecting its ‘purity,’ both at home and abroad. English, on the other hand, has not been treated in the same guarded way; while there are books and journals devoted to the ‘new’ Englishes and to ‘world’ English, there are few similar treatments for French. English is thus becoming ‘internationalized’ in a way that French is not, and an important consequence is that a language once tainted by imperialism is rapidly becoming ‘ours’ in many parts of the world. India provides perhaps the best example of a broadly accepted indigenized variety of English.

Classifying Multilingualism

Understanding the dynamics of multilingualism means coming to grips with many complicated linkages between languages and virtually all other areas of social life. While it is no doubt true that every language–contact situation is unique, that uniqueness arises because of the differential weightings and combinations of elements that are, themselves, recurrent across settings – and not because of the presence of elements or factors found nowhere else. This suggests the possibility of frameworks within which many settings might be assessed and compared.

Building upon the work of many other researchers, I have constructed a typological framework of language–contact settings, with particular reference to minority linguistic groups. While such a model does not cover all important instances of multilingual contact, it is certainly descriptive of a great many – simply because language contact very often involves varieties of unequal strength. To provide physical context, the framework begins with the adaptation of a geographical scheme first proposed by White (1991). It makes three basic distinctions. The first is among minority languages which are unique to one state (e.g., Breton in France), those which are non-unique but which are still subordinate in all contexts in which they occur (e.g., Basque in Spain and France), and those which are minorities in one setting but majority varieties elsewhere (French in Canada and French in France); thus, we have unique, non-unique, and local-only minorities. The second distinction deals with the type of connection among speakers of the same language in different states; are they adjoining (again, Basque in Spain and France) or non-adjoining (French in Canada and French in France)? Thirdly, what degree of spatial cohesion exists among speakers within a given state? Here, the terms cohesive (Cree in Canada) and non-cohesive (Spanish in the United States) can be used. In addition, the model considers these distinctions as they apply to both immigrant and indigenous groups (French and Cree in Quebec).²

Such a framework cannot capture all the important nuances, of course, some of which are not immediately apparent. As an example, consider the immigrant–indigenous dimension. Some have argued that only Amerindian languages – which, themselves, arrived via ‘Beringia’ some 12,000 years ago – are indigenous to Canada. French and English, however, have 400-year claims. While less indigenous than the ‘first nations’ might they be considered as more indigenous than later arrivals? How long, in other words, does it take to become indigenous? This is not an idle matter, since scholarly pleas have been made for the differential treatment of indigenous and immigrant groups. There are also problems with the cohesiveness dimension: if a language is spoken sparsely over a wide area, but also possesses a concentrated center, then it could perhaps be described as either cohesive or non-cohesive. Yet another difficulty arises when considering a language that is found in adjoining states; while each group can be classified as cohesive or non-cohesive, the degree of cohesion of its neighbor may also be important. Issues also arise concerning the adjoining/non-adjoining dichotomy itself. For Basques in France and Spain, the adjoining label seems appropriate, but what of language communities groups found in neighboring states but not...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics
• Title page
• Copyright page
• Dedication
• Acknowledgments
• Contributors
• Introduction
• Part I: Overview and Foundations
• Part II: Neurological and Psychological Aspects of Bilingualism and Multilingualism
• Part III: Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and its Effects
• Part IV: Global Perspectives and Challenges: Case Studies
• Index