On the Dynamics of Early Multilingualism

Barbara Hofer

• Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781501500541
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Langues et linguistique
• Subtopic: Linguistique

This book contributes to current issues in TLA and multilingualism research. It discusses multilingual learning and development from a Dynamic Systems Theory perspective. The author argues that trilingual education does not harm or confuse young learners but that the teaching of three languages from an early age carries positive implications for children's linguistic, metalinguistic, and crosslinguistic awareness.

I Theoretical Background

. . . the multilingual child experiences the world

through two or more languages

which are used in alternation.

For the multilingual, linguistic experience

is spread over several languages . . .

Adapted from Malakoff & Hakuta (1991:142)

Theoretical underpinnings in early multilingual instruction

1 An Introduction to Multilingualism

The past decade has seen an unprecedented interest in the study of multiple language acquisition and multilingual education. As intimated above, this trend has been paralleled and possibly promoted by the rapid growth in psycholinguistic research not only in SLA but increasingly also in the field of TLA. The marked interest in all matters multilingual can also be linked to worldwide societal changes brought about by globalisation and increased migration. In addition, it has become clear that languages have a market value (Clyne, 2003:68; cf. Olshtain & Nissim-Amitai, 2004:34) and that cultural and linguistic diversity constitute an asset to a country’s or region’s economy. Moreover, the perception appears to be winning ground that multilingualism is “not an aberration – as many, in particular monolingual speakers, may still think – but a normal necessity for the world’s majority” (Jessner, 2006:1), and that cultural and linguistic diversity constitute a rich linguistic and intellectual capital and resource for the whole of society (Cummins, 2000, 2001; Garcia, 2012).

1.1 On the benefits of an early start

Parents but also teachers and educational authorities have frequently voiced concern as to the cognitive and developmental repercussions of early second or foreign language teaching on children. We know today, that this concern is quite unfounded (cf. Galambos & Hakuta, 1988; Lasagabaster, 2001b:313; Bialystok, 2007; De Angelis & Jessner, 2012). Early research into bilingualism and second language acquisition mostly identified detrimental effects of bilinguality on the speaker’s cognition. Today, our understanding of bilingualism has greatly advanced. There is strong empirical evidence indicating that the benefits of early foreign language acquisition are very real (as we shall also see in Part II of this book) and that any potential deficits are by far outweighed by the advantages of mastering two or more languages. This is illustrated by the recommendations laid down by the European Commission. The Commission’s White Paper (1995) calls for the introduction of second or foreign language teaching at the preschool level and recommends that every European citizen should, in addition to one’s first language, acquire two further community languages. Although there is no conclusive evidence attesting to the benefits of very early programmes (cf. Etxeberrìa, 2004; Cenoz, 2004, Munoz, 2006, 2011), it is probably true to say that even in the absence of any immediately measurable benefit, longterm benefits are to be expected. This claim is here made on the grounds of the following observations and findings. Firstly, extended exposure to an L2 or L3 has widely been found to benefit learners (cf. Hakuta & Diaz, 1985:323 and Lee, 1996). Secondly, studies on L2 users’ phonological competence show that there is a correlation between age of onset and phonological performance and/ or phonological awareness (Bruck & Genesee, 1995; Price et al., 1999; Andreou, 2007), and thirdly, research findings on the impact of motivation in foreign language learning indicate that young children show positive attitudes and high motivation towards second or foreign language learning. This positive disposition has been found to decrease as children get older (Cenoz, 2004:205).

Robinson (1998) suggests that early (second) language learning greatly benefits the child in that it “enhances students’ basic skills in such areas as English language arts, reading, and math. This holds for academically talented children as well as for those of below-average ability, those with handicaps that affect learning, and those at risk” (43; see also Da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995 in Thompson, 2008:135). Robinson’s assertion is echoed by Haas (1998) who notes that “[i]n any area of study, students benefit from starting early and continuing through a long sequence of learning that grows and deepens as they mature” (43). Similarly, Cook (2002) posits that children who acquire a second language at an early age develop better communicative skills, learn to read more rapidly and are more aware of grammatical structures (7).

Bilingual or multilingual instruction provides pupils with a vast amount of L2/L3 input which allows young learners to extrapolate the regularities of phonology, morphology, and syntax. The headway that young learners thereby gain in terms of receptive and productive competence constitutes one of the major advantages of early foreign language education. As indicated, this headway is by no means restricted to vocabulary learning but extends to the acquisition and development of morpho-syntactical structures and phonology. Genesee (2003), for instance, intimates that, in contrast to monolingual children, bilingual children possess additional processing capacities which permit them to coordinate the grammars of their two languages on-line (223). Similarly, Price et al. (1999) argue that “individuals who acquire both their languages early are better able to programme phonological responses and are less likely to have a foreign accent” (2233). This obtains because early acquisition of an L2 or L3 causes morphosyntactic structures and phonological features to become deeply entrenched or anchored in the child’s cognitive system. Basing herself on a substantial body of research on the cognitive and academic benefits of (early) language learning, Robinson (1998:41) concludes that “all students can profit academically from participation in an early language program. Time spent in studying a foreign language is time well-spent.” This does, however, not imply that ‘earlier is always better’ (cf. Munoz, 2005:83) or that older students are necessarily disadvantaged with regards to second and third language learning (cf. Munoz, 2006). In point of fact, one ought not to forget that in certain aspects of L3 learning older learners may be more advantaged since they are cognitively more mature, possess a more profound knowledge of the world and can build on a more developed L1 and possibly L2 (particularly as far as literacy skills are concerned).

1.2 Cognitive consequences of being bi/multilingual

Until 1962, the widespread assumption held amongst linguists and lay persons was that bilingualism and multilingualism may inhibit the acquisition and full mastery of the speaker’s first language and that it may cause mental confusion (Baker, 2006:143; see also Lee, 1996 and Hakuta & Diaz, 1985). Genesee (2002:170) explicates that the simultaneous acquisition of two languages was or is oftentimes “thought to exceed the language learning capacity of the young child and thus to incur potential costs, such as delayed or incomplete language development or even deviant development”. The early nineteenth century, in particular, saw scholars propound the detrimental effects of bilingualism on the individual’s identity and cognition. It was claimed that bilingualism places an immense strain on the speaker’s mental capacity and that it could even trigger schizophrenia (ibid.; cf. Wandruska, 1979:52). This extreme position was seen as corroborated by the results of early studies on the relationship between bilingualism and intelligence. The findings generated by these studies seemed to imply that bilinguals have lower IQs than monolinguals. Saer (1923) in particular condemned bilingualism for bringing forth mentally confused and retarded individuals. Bilingualism, it was maintained, would burden the brain and cause mental confusion and identity conflicts (Baker, 2006:143). Lüdi (2007) intimates that negative connotations associated with bilingualism and multilingualism might stem from the fact that in the bible people were portrayed as originally having and using only one language. Multilingualism, he suggests, calls to mind Sprachverwirrung, the language confusion which was seen as God’s punishment to his people (39).

At the end of the nineteenth century, Laurie, a professor of English at Cambridge University, famously proclaimed that

If it were possible for a child to live in two languages at once equally well, so much the worse. His intellectual and spiritual growth would not thereby be doubled, but halved. Unity of mind and character would have great difficulty in asserting itself in such circumstances (Laurie, 1890:15 cited in Lüdi, 2007: 39).

Early studies of bilingualism characterised bilinguals, and bilingual children in particular, as having “lower IQ scores than monolinguals”, as being “socially malajusted”, and as trailing monolinguals in academic performance (Reynolds, 1991:145). Diaz (1983) reports on studies conducted prior to 1962 which relate to bilingualism as some sort of social plague and as a language handicap found predominantly in the lower social strata (25). Today, as pointed out by Baker (2006) and numerous other scholars, it is generally acknowledged that those early studies were frought with weaknesses and did not comply with scientific measures of reliability and validity (144).

The 1960s were to witness radically different developments and attitudes in terms of scholars’ and the general public’s perception of bilingualism. In 1962 two scientific publications brought about a rather unexpected change of perception regarding the consequences of bilingualism and the impact of bilinguality on the speaker’s cognition. One was Peal & Lambert’s seminal article on “The relation of bilingualism to intelligence”, the other was the English edition of Lev Vygotsky’s Thought and Language (Reynolds, 1991:146–147). Vygotsky suggested that learning a second language in childhood “facilitates mastering the higher forms of the native language” (in Swain & Lapkin, 1991:206). This, according to Vygotsky, causes bilingual children to perceive their language(s) as a system among many and invariably makes them more aware of their linguistic operations (ibid.; see also Reynolds, 1991:147). Similarly, Peal & Lambert (1962) posited that bilingualism carries positive implications for the individual learner. The authors found that bilinguals possess a more diversified set of cognitive abilities than monolinguals. The bilingual children participating in their study had obtained better results than the monolingual control group on most cognitive tests and subtests. In particular, the bilingual group performed better on tests measuring verbal and non-verbal abilities. It emerged that bilingual children’s ability to mentally manipulate and reorganise visually presented stimuli was superior to that of the monolingual controls. Peal & Lambert thus concluded that bilingual children are advantaged, compared to monolingual children, particularly in tasks which require mental flexibility and concept formation (Reynolds, 1991:146). Penfield even went as far as intimating that “[t]he bilingual brain is a better brain” (in Lambert, 1991:238).

In contradistinction to the large body of research literature on bilingualism and second language acquisition, studies on TLA and multilingualism are somewhat sparse. This is partly due to the fact that the field of tri- and multilingualism research is a relatively young one. Encouragingly, though, many recent studies suggest that children who learn an L2 or L3 may be “more intellectually acute” (Andreou & Anastassiou, 2011:111) and that “bilingual learners will acquire an additional language faster and more efficiently” (Safont Jorda`, 2005:46). In contrast to the formerly held belief that bilingualism may have negative implications on the speaker, there are strong indications that bilingualism furthers speakers’ cognitive and linguistic development and that it promotes third language learning. Keshavarz & Astaneh (2004), for instance, evidenced positive effects of bilingualism on TLA. The authors intimate that bilinguals are better and more efficient at foreign language vocabulary learning than monolinguals (300). Keshavarz & Astaneh’s findings are consistent with Rivers (1996) who compared (adult) bilingual and monolingual groups enrolled on various intensive Slavic and non-Slavic language training programmes. Rivers hypothesised that respondents who had previously learned a second language would display different learning behaviours than monolingual subjects who had no prior foreign language learning experience. As expected, their test results yielded “dramatic evidence that experienced language learners do indeed learn faster th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Lists of figures
• Preface
• I Theoretical background
• II A South Tyrol case study
• Endnotes
• Bibliography
• Index