A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics
192
A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics
192Hardcover
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781853594687 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Multilingual Matters Ltd. |
| Publication date: | 01/16/2002 |
| Series: | Multilingual Matters , #121 |
| Pages: | 192 |
| Product dimensions: | 6.00(w) x 8.30(h) x 1.30(d) |
About the Author
Ulrike Jessner has published on psycholinguistic issues in the fields of second language acquisition, multilingualism and gender issues. Recently she has co-edited the book English in Europe (Multilingual Matters, 2000).
Both authors are Associate Professors of English Linguistics at the University of Innsbruck, Austria.
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
Introductory Remarks
Research interest in the linguistic phenomenon of multilingualism has been increasing over the last decades (see e.g. Edwards, 1994) and it has turned out that multilingualism is not only far more common than originally expected – and therefore of greater sociolinguistic importance – but research into multilingualism is expected to exert considerable influence on linguistic theory. Today an increasing number of opinions are voiced according to which linguistic research should no longer be modelled on the monolingual speaker but should take the bilingual as its point of departure (see Romaine, 1989; Cook, 1993a).
As the majority of the world's population is multilingual, research on linguistics should be centred on the multilingual speaker as the norm, not on the monolingual individual. As Cook (1993b: 245) suggests, basing psycholinguistics on the ideal monolingual speaker (homo monolinguis) in fact constitutes a misunderstanding of at least the majority of native speakers. It has become obvious that our conception of the speaker's language system has to be flexible enough to accommodate the command of more than one language. This requirement necessitates a reevaluation of the dominant conceptions of second language acquisition (henceforth SLA) within a multilingual context (see Kachru, 1994) and the reassessment of the relevant theories on the basis of crosscultural evidence (see Sridhar, 1994). Multilingualism therefore must not only be accepted as the linguistic norm, it must also be realised that it is closely linked to the concepts of personal identity, ethnicity and multiculturalism. We will, however, not touch upon this issue as we do not consider it important for our discussion here (see, e.g. Hamers & Blanc, 1989: 60–83).
The dynamic view outlined in this book attempts to provide a new model and a new set of concepts for the interpretation of psycholinguistic phenomena observed in speakers of more than one language. Although there is no immediate precedent to be found in psycholinguistic (or multilingualism) research – as the psychodynamics of multilingualism have only in part been addressed so far – a systems-theoretic approach as can be found in chaos and complexity theory has been with us in other sciences, such as biology and physics, where it has risen against the trend of reductionism for quite a while now (see Gleick, 1987).
It is probably true to say that recent research into multilingualism has raised rather more questions concerning the acquisition of languages and the nature of human language ability than it has provided answers. Traditional conceptions and explanations of language learning and resulting crosslinguistic effects have thus been called into question. On the basis of these findings it is suggested that our interpretations of language learning, what it is to know a language, etc. urgently require revision. The authors believe that a large number of theories currently discussed in research on language acquisition and multilingualism lack an overall theoretical foundation.
What distinguishes the systems-theoretic view from other approaches to multilingualism? The first claim made by the authors is that the dynamic systems approach, as outlined here, is a novel approach to the field, although the concept of language as a system is by no means a new one (see, e.g. Schweizer, 1979). The novel aspects introduced by the dynamic model include a psycholinguistic focus on the systems-theoretic approach that is based on research on the behaviour of living systems and a dynamic interpretation of the systems model. Whilst other models are satisfied to create a systems interpretation of the field of research, this model makes a point of a dynamic representation of multilingualism. In the dynamic model of multilingualism (henceforth DMM) it does not suffice to determine the relations between various factors within the system, but predictions concerning the typical development of these variables are also attempted.
A systems-theoretic interpretation as suggested by DMM allows a realistic view of the phenomenon of multilingualism, which transcends traditional approaches to multilingualism. This model not only takes into account the methodological insight into the fact that a bilingual speaker is more than two monolingual individuals joined together (see Grosjean, 1985) but also connects SLA research to an originally purely sociolinguistic approach to bi-/multilingualism by integrating knowledge of language learning from various strands of research. Thus on the basis of a closer investigation of multilingualism we obtain a number of research goals that have so far been ignored in linguistic research dominated by the monolingual paradigm. DMM is a psycholinguistic model which sees language change on an individual level as a function of time, that is, a focus is placed on the variability and dynamics of the individual speaker system, an aspect of multilingual learning hitherto largely ignored.
DMMtakes an innovative approach to the subject matter in at least two ways: firstly, and in accordance with systems-theoretic principles, DMM views a multilingual speaker as a complex psycholinguistic system comprising individual language systems (LS1, LS2, LS3, etc.) and consequently applies insights gained from the observation of the biological development and behaviour of living organisms to research on multilingualism. Secondly, DMM tries to create an explicit model of multilingualism specifying dependent and independent variables and making predictions about the development of multilingual systems.
Obviously this is a rather ambitious aim at this stage of research. The modelling provided does, however, fulfil the Chomskyan criterion of explicitness (see Chomsky, 1965: 4), a precondition of effective theory development, and also provides a framework within which hitherto inscrutable or insurmountable problems of multilingualism can be addressed. Whilst one might argue that this step is methodologically premature, it is certainly not methodologically naive. It is rather the counterargument that more empirical research has to be conducted prior to the construction of such models that stems from a certain naivety concerning the independence of experience or empirical findings of theoretical preconceptions. As all experience is necessarily theory-laden it is methodologically advisable to create an explicit model of the theoretical preconditions of research conducted in multilingualism, and it is this explicitness that in the authors' view research on multilingualism very often lacks (see Herdina, 1990).
The focus of the book is theoretical and the suggested model is intended to provide an essential and useful framework for future research, both in general and applied linguistics. This book should therefore not be seen as an introduction like, for instance, Baker's most valuable contribution to the field (1996), but as an attempt to introduce a novel perspective serving as a bridge between SLA and multilingualism research, which might be compared to the ecological approach to bilingualism initiated by Haugen (1972).
As our theory claims to cover the topic of multilingualism, the reader will of course be tempted to ask what the authors mean by the term multilingualism. S/he will be acquainted with the accepted distinctions between incipient and fully developed bi-/multilingualism, balanced or unbalanced bilingualism, learner systems and fully developed bilingualism to name a few (see Hoffmann, 1991: 14–18; Lüdi, 1996). Whilst we do not expect the reader to fall into the trap of only accepting the ambilingual speaker as legitimate object of bi-/multilingualism research, there always remains the question of where learner systems or language learning ends and where multilingualism starts. As we hope to show in the course of the book, one of the great advantages of DMM is the fact that we are primarily interested in a holistic conception and understanding of multilingualism, where it is at least initially of little consequence whether the respective language system is available in its incipient form or as a mature one.
Furthermore we assume that the phenomenon of bilingualism on which most of the research available has been conducted is essentially a variant of multilingualism (see Haarmann, 1980: 13) and that many of the findings – but certainly not all – can therefore be generalised to cover all variants of multilingualism. Recent research on third language acquisition (henceforth TLA) (see, e.g. Hufeisen & Lindemann, 1998) has shown that investigations into three languages in contact is a field in its own right and it is one of the aims of the book to model multilingual learning by going beyond the discussion of the contact between two language systems. So, whilst we would like to show how bilingual systems can form the basis of modelling multilingualism, our discussion in this book will also focus on specific features of multilingualism which make it differ from SLA and bilingualism.
Plan of the Book
As the issues raised in this volume are necessarily complex it will prove to be of advantage to provide a brief outline of the topics covered in the book. It will be noted that, methodologically, we adopt a twofold approach. Whilst the Chapters 1 to 5 try to give an overview of the existing problems and theories by pointing out important steps in the history of research on SLA and bilingualism, providing the reader with a grasp of current multilingual issues, the main part of the book expounds both a new concept of multilingualism and the overall theoretical context in which this new interpretation is to be seen. Thus, whilst in the early chapters we necessarily use an inductive approach drawing on numerous and varied sources to back up the arguments, the final chapters are of a more deductive nature, deriving the new model from initial assumptions and hypotheses. The model is unfolded step by step revealing increasing complexities as the details are added. The various stages are illustrated by numerous graphs which are intended to help the reader understand the concepts introduced.
Overview of Chapters
Following some introductory remarks in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 attempts to provide an overview of the main topics raised in multilingualism research, that is a survey of the main issues raised in bilingualism and SLA research. Chapter 3 takes a closer look at the problem of transfer as one of the core questions of multilingualism research, where transfer phenomena are considered in the widest possible terms, and develops some working hypotheses on the basis of the conclusions drawn. Chapter 4 turns to the theories developed by Universal Grammar which have dominated research on multilingualism and language acquisition in order to outline shortcomings and suggest some modifications to the Universal Grammar approach. Chapter 5 takes a closer look at the salient features of multilingualism and interprets the recent findings with a special focus on studies undertaken in TLA research as indicative of the need for a new model of multilingualism. The chapter starts with the discussion of an important problem of current research, that is the clarification of what is to be understood by the command of a language or more than one language. The following two Chapters 6 and 7 represent the core of the book, in which DMM is developed and analysed. Chapter 6 introduces dynamic systems approaches and links them to the development of DMM. In Chapter 7 individual factors of the model are investigated and the greater explanatory power of the dynamic model of multilingualism is demonstrated. Chapter 8 finally looks more closely at the question of holism. It should become clear that DMM presents a fundamentally holistic approach and it has to be pointed out that it differs from w(!)holistic suggestions made in research so far. The closing Chapter 9 focuses on some theoretical issues of the model and presents future research perspectives identified by DMM as well as suggestions for applications in multilingual education.
CHAPTER 2
Stages in Research on Multilingualism
The question whether the bilingual speaker differs from the monolingual has been at the centre of interest in bilingualism research for almost a century (see Kelly, 1969). Over the last thirty years the number of psycholinguistic studies focusing on the effects of bilingualism, on the intelligence of the child, and on how a bilingual mentally organises the two languages has increased greatly (see Reynolds, 1991b) and with this the linguistic interpretation of SLA and bilingualism have changed considerably. This change has also affected the interpretation of the psychological and educational implications of each interpretation (see Bialystok, 1991a).
We do not intend to give a detailed review of bilingualism research here – because several other authors have done so in detail (see, e.g. Grosjean, 1982; Hakuta, 1986; Appel & Muysken, 1987; Romaine, 1989; Hamers & Blanc, 1989; Hoffmann, 1991; Baker, 1996; Baker&Prys Jones, 1998) – but to provide a description of the research carried out during the last few decades which has developed in the fields we consider relevant for our discussion of psycholinguistic issues. Before we turn to questions of language processing in bilinguals, the role of transfer explanations of learner systems and the impact of the Peal & Lambert study on current research on bilingualism we will first of all focus on the dominant concept of a bilingual as a double monolingual in one person.
Double Monolingualism Hypothesis
Although an increasing number of investigations of language choice, code switching and code mixing have indicated that it is common in bilinguals either to use their two languages alternately or to mix them (see, Milroy & Muysken, 1995), the monolingual (or fractional) view – a term introduced by Grosjean (1985) – is still the prevailing concept in studies of bilingualism and SLA. Most research on bilingualism has been based on the view of the bilingual as the sum of two monolinguals in one person with two separate language competences or, in other words, bilinguals being regarded as two monolinguals in one person. Consequently bilingual proficiency has generally been measured against monolingual proficiency.
Early research on bilingualism, conducted by Saer (1922, 1923) and later Weisgerber (1966), for example, showed the bilingual speaker to be deficiently monolingual or semilingual, even when bilingual competence was acquired prior to the critical period, which in theory should have ensured native speaker competence. We must concede that these findings may partly be attributed to ideological bias. It was initially held that bilingualism would have a detrimental effect not only on language development as such but also on cognitive development in general. In a most comprehensive review Hakuta (1986: 14–44) describes three stages of the history of research on bilingualism and intelligence which he terms the periods of detrimental, neutral and additive effects, thus indicating a developmental pattern in research towards a positive view of bilingualism.
More recent findings, however, still tend to confirm, if not the purported detrimental cognitive effects, then at least the linguistic disadvantage of bilingual children – when compared with monolinguals of the same age – which is generally attributed to the dominance in one of their languages. Countless studies in SLA research seem to prove the linguistic inferiority of bilinguals in comparison with monolinguals. Not only do bilinguals' linguistic resources generally appear to be inferior to those of their monolingual counterparts, there also seems to be ample evidence of interaction between the two language systems, thus making the double monolingualism hypothesis less plausible. It can therefore be noted that as long as bilinguals are measured according to monolingual criteria, they appear to be greatly disadvantaged both in linguistic and cognitive terms (see Baker, 1996: 119).
As bilingualism is a fairly recent research goal in the history of linguistics, it is not surprising that many researchers still tend to draw upon monolingual psycholinguistic theories. Due to the dominance of a mentalist theory of language acquisition, as originally specified by Chomsky (1965), bilingualism is generally interpreted as a kind of double monolingualism, a view of bilingualism that would allow no connection between bilingualism and SLA. In contrast to this we will describe and analyse earlier research on bilingualism and SLA to show up common or complementary aspects in these two related fields of research.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism"
by .
Copyright © 2002 Philip Herdina and Ulrike Jessner.
Excerpted by permission of Multilingual Matters.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.