Universität Mannheim
While the Common European Framework for Languages calls for empowering
European citizens with three languages each, many countries still need to wake
up to the substantial multilingual potential already available right in their
midst, even though the languages
involved, namely those of the immigrants of the past decades, are not part of
Europe’s traditional educational curricula. One particularly intriguing
consequence of this situation is that researchers interested in the
psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic dimensions of language contact find a
natural laboratory situation, with children of different ages and adults
supplying us with new insights into the ways in which the human brain manages
to juggle more than one language. In my presentation I will focus on the
remarkable early linguistic abilities and analytical skills of children
undergoing different acquisition types, such as first language acquisition
(L1), the simultaneous acquisition of two first languages (2L1), and second
language acquisition (L2) in preschool years; in addition there will be
occasional reference to the verbal behavior of German immigrants to the USA who
acquired their L2 English as adults.
My contribution consists of three parts related to past, present and
(hopefully) future views of multilingualism or bilingualism (terms which I will
use interchangeably throughout). As I will explain below, I believe that
linguists and practitioners in the field of language disorders should join
forces and expertise in their efforts to foster multiple language acquisition
in both typically and atypically developing children. My overall conclusion
concerning what can be done will therefore be emphatically optimistic. As a
point of departure I briefly address what kind of intellectual baggage we can
safely discard, i.e. the myths
alluded to in my title.
1. Ideas to
leave behind
Bilingualism as an exceptional cognitive state
The myth that monolingualism is more “normal” than bilingualism is easily
disposed of once we take demographic facts into account. Numerically speaking,
it is the monolingual who is the “rare bird”. From a
linguistic point of view, of course, monolingualism is a fiction anyway, since
speakers/hearers develop coexisting varieties from early on. Depending on
interlocutors and contexts, even speakers who would be considered monolingual
by most standards, may make use of various regional
and social dialects, different registers and styles. Selecting and monitoring
one’s choice of appropriate linguistic varieties is part and parcel of speech
production. Strictly speaking, then, monolingualism may be not just rare but
non-existent.
From a linguistic perspective, the notion of coexisting systems should
actually be taken one step further. After all, each single utterance already
involves mapping different types of representation onto each other, such as the
levels of segmental and suprasegmental phonology, morphosyntax, argument
structure and pragmatics, to name but a few. Second or foreign language
learners may master these levels to different degrees, and in some domains,
such as the lexicon and stylistic repertoires, we easily find differences among
native speakers as well.
Double standards
Even those of us who are well aware of demographic facts may find it
hard to refrain from prejudice when it comes to saying which languages are
worth maintaining or acquiring in the first place. Attitudes clearly depend on
the “market value” of a language, i.e. on the prestige of its speakers. At this
point in time, European pediatricians, teachers and other educators are more
likely to warn against the simultaneous acquisition of languages such as
Berber, Urdu, or Akan than against high-status languages such as English and
French.
Double standards reveal themselves in other contexts as well. Most of us
could probably produce anecdotal evidence of situations where we easily ignore
a heavy foreign accent or deviant gender and case marking in the German of
prestigious non-native speakers. At the same time we might feel considerably
less tolerant toward the seven-year-old Turkish- or Russian-speaking child who,
after having been exposed to German for two years or less, still errs in gender
assignment or drops prepositions. Few of us might be willing to even consider
the possibility that the child or young person whose German reveals ethnolectal
features is quite capable of conforming to other variants of German, including
articles and prepositions, should the need arise (cf. Keim 2004). Clearly, we
need to re-evaluate our attitudes and overcome persistent deficit perspectives.
Bilinguals: two monolinguals in one
As other speakers at this conference have highlighted in their research,
bilinguals do not necessarily behave like two monolinguals in one (if there
were monolinguals, that is!). It is entirely
unrealistic to expect bilinguals to gladly talk about any topic to any stranger
happening to address them in one of their languages. Moreover, unless
bilinguals have been exposed to the vocabulary needed for certain topics in
both languages, it is unlikely that they can express themselves with equal ease
in each. In many cases, bilinguals may not have cross-linguistic lexical
equivalents in their languages for the simple reason that there are no
equivalents available in the first place.
In particular, we have to stop convincing bilinguals (including most of
us) that there is something wrong with them because their languages work for
them according to some “division of labor” principle.
Language mixing:
a deficit
For many observers language mixing is indicative of a serious linguistic
deficit or “semilingualism”. Thanks to intensive sociolinguistic research of
the last decades, we now know that code-mixing is part of the natural stylistic
repertoire of bilingual speech communities (cf. Myers-Scotton 2006). In
general, it is surprisingly systematic and not due to the inability to converse
in one language only. Situational and other variables (topic, discourse
function) determine whether bilinguals inhibit their languages or not (Green
1998, Lattey & Tracy 2005). Clearly, whenever only one language is
appropriate, considerable monitoring is called for in order to suppress
undesirable interference from the other. In multilingual contexts, on the other
hand, no effort needs to be wasted on suppressing any of the languages. What
this also means is that multilingualism comes at a price: The wider the range
of options, the harder it may be to make the right selection in every single
instance.
Bilingual children are capable of choosing languages according to
interlocutors and of controlling their output by the time they are 2-3 years
old. In my talk I will show that the very nature of children’s language mixing
reveals remarkable precision work and that they borrow lexical and structural
patterns from one language in a highly precise manner to fill gaps in the
other. Bilingual children also show us that children in general are capable of
developing metalinguistic abilities at a much earlier age than hitherto
assumed.
Early bilingualism:
(con)fusion and subtractive effects
There is still a strong belief that children’s first languages need to
develop to a certain level before a second language should enter the scene for
outcomes to be beneficial to both languages and to cognitive development in
general (Cummins 1986). Research from the simultaneous
acquisition of two first languages shows that this concern is unnecessary.
We now know that children exposed to two languages from birth can differentiate
and separate their languages very early, even though the ease with which this
is possible in acquisition and in online production clearly depends on
similarities and contrasts exhibited by their input languages. Also, as a
consequence of the relative complexity of the systems acquired, the child’s
languages need not develop in perfect tandem and one language may temporarily
be faster or “stronger”
than the other (cf. Gawlitzek-Maiwald & Tracy 1996, Genesee
et al. 1995, Müller et al. 2005; Tracy & Gawlitzek 2000, 2005).
To be sure, just as there is no guarantee that children offered two
first languages in the home will maintain both into adulthood, there is no a
priori guarantee that a child’s L1 will survive in the context of a high-status
L2. But this is an issue which is independent of the basic ability to cope with
more than one language from early on and is clearly related to the issue of
prestige mentioned above.
Languages as “objects”
One myth more or less implicitly intertwined with those already
mentioned and one that – fortunately – linguists and experts in language and
speech disorders are not likely to entertain is that languages are somehow
acquired like real objects one can possess in an all-or-nothing fashion.
Knowledge of language requires the reconstruction of abstract levels (or
modules) of representation, which can be mastered to different degrees: Poor
phonology may well exist alongside a fair range of vocabulary and elaborate
stylistic repertoires; conversely, someone who has good pronunciation skills
may never master specific syntactic or pragmatic domains. In preschool pedagogy
this language-qua-whole-object view often goes hand in hand with the idea that
programs fostering L2 acquisition should be “holistic”. Clearly, if this means
that communication with small children should take into account what they are
interested in and be based on the here and now, this is correct but trivial. If
this means that one should not tailor one’s programs to specific states of
learner grammars and learner needs, we run the risk of being ineffective. It
seems that there still is a curious fear of overtaxing children by creating a
structured environment. It is not overtaxing that is a problem, but lack of
sufficiently specific challenges to the learner’s analytical skills.
2. L1 and L2
acquisition: the state of the art
We have good reasons for our
fascination with L1 acquisition: In the typical case it is remarkably robust,
fast (but, as I shall argue in my presentation, young L2-learners can be faster
yet!!), as well as independent of intelligence and modality (signed or oral
language). Learners proceed in a highly systematic fashion, go through very
similar stages, and require neither explicit instruction nor corrective
feedback. By the time they are 2-3 years old, children unaffected by SLI have
mastered the most crucial features of their target grammars. German children of
that age, for instance, have figured out the intricacies of verb placement and
subject-verb agreement.
The same holds for children exposed
to two languages from birth. I will discuss evidence from children growing up
with German and English as two first languages and compare them with
monolinguals of the same ages. I will argue that children’s code-mixing in
utterances such as Soll ich hit it?, Kannst du move a bit? can be
related in a straightforward way to the developmental state reached in
each language. Mixing patterns as well
self-corrections reveal interesting details about children’s early ability to
monitor their own speech and about their rudimentary awareness of
cross-linguistic equivalence.
In comparison with what we know about first language
acquisition (including the simultaneous acquisition of two first languages) our
knowledge of early L2 acquisition is still in its infancy – which is highly
unfortunate, given the current need for information in this domain. The few
longitudinal case studies currently available of children first exposed to
German as their L2 between the ages of three and four suggest that their development matches
what we know from L1-acquisition in crucial respects (cf. Rothweiler i.Dr.,
Thoma & Tracy 2006). On the basis of L2 data from children with Russian,
Turkish and Arabic as L1, it will be shown that early L2 acquisition is
surprisingly robust, even under less than perfect conditions.
3. Challenges
In more than one way researchers interested in studying and promoting
multilingualism and experts in the profession of language and speech therapy
find themselves in a similar position. First of all,
they all face the challenge of differentiating what is a “typical” product of
the coexistence of two or more languages in a single head (including some
degree of interference and more or less intensive code-mixing) from what is a
situation calling for remediation. In addition to this common interest in
diagnostic puzzles, they should be able to join forces in eliminating the myths
mentioned above. Also, because of the heightened awareness in both fields of
the selective nature of many language and speech disorders, there is an common understanding of the need to finely tune
therapeutic or educational measures to quite specific problems.
In countries with a high number of
immigrant children we are currently faced with a kind of hybrid acquisition type
cutting across the traditional categories of L1, 2L1, natural L2, and
institutional or foreign language learning. This hybrid calls for a new and
well-designed combination of both early L2-immersion and the deliberate
exposure to very specific linguistic patterns and contrasts, as a way of
challenging the learner’s natural problem-solving skills. What speech
therapists can contribute to this discussion is their knowledge that even
small, highly specific, and temporarily sparse interventions and remediation
steps can make a big difference and trigger off important changes. This
awareness of what can be achieved by children once their linguistic input is
systematically enriched is certainly one of the most important messages a
conference like this one can help generate.
References
Cummins, Jim (1986). Linguistic intedependence: A central principle of
bilingual education. In: Jim Cummins & Merrill Swain (eds.).
Bilingualism in education. Aspects of theory, research and practice.
Gawlitzek-Maiwald, Ira & Tracy, Rosemarie (2005): The multilingual
potential in emerging grammars. International Journal of Bilingualism 9
(2), 277-297.
Green, David (1998): Mental Control of the Bilingual Lexico-Semantic
System. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1,
67-81.
Keim,
Inken (2004): Kommunikative Praktiken in
türkischstämmigen Kinder- und Jugendgruppen in Mannheim. Deutsche Sprache
32, 198-226.
Lattey, Elsa
& Rosemarie Tracy (2005). ’Well, I tell you, das war’n Zeiten!’ – ein
deutsch-amerikanisches Sprachporträt. In: Hinnenkamp, Volker & Meng,
Katharina (eds.): Sprachgrenzen
überspringen. Sprachliche Hybridität und polykulturelles Selbstverständnis. Tübingen: Narr, 345-380.
Müller,
Natascha, Kupisch, Tanja, Schmitz, Katrin & Cantone, Katja (2006). Einführung
in die Mehrsprachigkeitsforschung. Tübingen: Narr.
Myers-Scotton,
Carol (2006). Multiple Voices.
Rothweiler, Monika (in press). The acquisition of V2 and subordinate
clauses in early successive acquisition of German. Journal
of Bilingualism.
Thoma, Dieter
& Tracy, Rosemarie (1986). Deutsch als frühe Zweitsprache: zweite
Erstsprache? In: Bernt Ahrenholz (ed.). Kinder mit Migrationshintergrund.
Freiburg: Fillibach, 53-75.
Tracy, Rosemarie (1996): Vom Ganzen und seinen Teilen:
Überlegungen zum doppelten Erstspracherwerb. Sprache und Kognition 15,
1/2, 70-92.
Tracy, Rosemarie & Gawlitzek-Maiwald, Ira (2000):
Bilingualismus in der frühen Kindheit. In:
Grimm, Hannelore (ed.). Enzyklopädie der Psychologie. Band 3.
Göttingen: Hogrefe, 495-535.