The Psychology of Multilingualism 1527570622, 9781527570627

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
Preface
Chapter I
Chapter II
Chapter III
Chapter IV
Chapter V
Chapter VI
Additional sources
Index of authors
Index of subjects

Citation preview

The Psychology of Multilingualism

The Psychology of Multilingualism: Concepts, Theories and Application By

Lajos Göncz

The Psychology of Multilingualism: Concepts, Theories and Application By Lajos Göncz This book first published 2021 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2021 by Lajos Göncz All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-7062-2 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-7062-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ........................................................................................................ vi Chapter I ...................................................................................................... 1 Psychology of multilingualism as a field of research: its topic(s), tasks, place in the system of sciences, development, methods of research, characteristics, and domains Chapter II ................................................................................................... 17 The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism Chapter III ................................................................................................. 57 Types of bilingualism: Psychological analysis of balance-dominant and coordinate-compound bilingualism Chapter IV ................................................................................................. 82 Multilingualism from the standpoint of developmental psychology and psychology of personality (including multilingual memory research and metalinguistic development in multilinguals) Chapter V ................................................................................................ 123 The social psychology and sociolinguistics of multilingualism Chapter VI ............................................................................................... 162 Educational aspects of the psychology of multilingualism Additional sources that were used in the writing of this book but are not cited in the References: A short selection ................................................ 207 Index of authors ....................................................................................... 226 Index of subjects ...................................................................................... 235

PREFACE

Forty-five years ago the author of this book examined the worldviews of children entering school. He noticed that some of them considered words to be an invisible property of the objects they denoted. Because they were guided by the properties of objects when judging the length of words, they thought that the word ox was longer than the word mosquito or ladybug. After the author asked them to explain why they think so, some children answered: It is because an ox is big, a mosquito is small. At the same time, however, he noticed that this phenomenon, known as nominal realism in the context of Piaget's theory of cognitive development, was beginning to decay earlier in children who had experience with two or more languages. This random observation directed the author's interest in multilingualism and related phenomena, and he has been investigating their impact on individuals and groups ever since. Here are some interesting questions that aroused his interest: How does someone become bilingual or multilingual? What relationships are built up between the language systems of multilinguals, and what are the impacts of these systems on each other? What are the consequences of long-term linguistic contact between different languages, and when or how much can one language modify the typological features of another language that is intensely related to it? What are the mechanisms that allow bilinguals and multilinguals to use their languages alternately in different life situations? How does the personality of children educated in linguistically, ethnically, culturally and religiously heterogeneous communities develop, and what are the psychological effects of bilingualism or multilingualism in these, more or less additive or subtractive situations? What problems occur in the pedagogical practice of such communities? Since many bilinguals and multilinguals are in a dominated or minority position, and the functions of their first language (mother tongue) are limited, how can they best be provided with human linguistic rights? These are just some of the intriguing questions that have attracted the author's attention over the past four decades devoted to studying the phenomenon of multilingualism. Parallel to his interest, public interest in multilingualism has also grown. Namely, multilingualism (including bilingualism) has become an internationally important issue not only for the reason that more than half

The Psychology of Multilingualism: Concepts, Theories and Application

vii

of the world’s population lives in some form of a bilingual or multilingual linguistic environment, but also because of the increasing interdependence between countries, regions and continents, and, more recently, because of increasing concern about preserving linguistic and cultural diversity. Investigations in many sciences concerning different aspects of multilingualism and discussions in the public arena on issues related to multilingualism are constantly increasing. This book is a comprehensive introduction to the research on multilingualism, and attempts to define the psychology of multilingualism as a distinct field of study. Although psychological aspects prevail, it provides a multidisciplinary perspective on individual and societal multilingualism, including insights from linguistics, pedagogy, cognitive neuroscience, sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics. Similar to Beatens Beardsmore’s (1986) book, “it underlines the normality of speaking and using more than one language and aims to dispel many myths and fears”. The book approaches multilingualism as a cognitively challenging experience. Besides theoretical issues, practical recommendations are also abundant on how to promote multilingualism in children from dominant language groups, and especially on how to maintain both/all languages of children from ethnic communities through education as well. It is primarily based on the results of investigations conducted by the author and his associates over the past four and a half decades in heterogeneous regions in Central and Eastern Europe, but these results are placed into the context of worldwide research on the topic. The content of every book can be structured in many ways. This book contains six chapters, followed by references, and an index of authors and subjects. Chapter I is devoted to general questions of the psychology of multilingualism (tasks, subject matter, development, methods of research, and domains). Chapter II contains the basic concepts of the psychology of multilingualism and scientific knowledge related to these concepts. They are derived from the psychology of language, from the sciences of bilingualism and multilingualism, and other sources, mostly from developmental and educational psychology, cognitive neurosciences, and sociolinguistics. The psychology of multilingualism utilises psychology of language definitions and basic knowledge concerning speech, language, the psychophysiology of speech, language acquisition, theories of language development, and views about the relationship between language or speech and thought. The sciences of bilingualism and multilingualism have enriched the psychology of multilingualism with the definitions and knowledge related to the mother tongue, to bilingualism/multilingualism, and the types of

viii

Preface

bilingualism/multilingualism. Definitions and related knowledge on linguistic minorities/majorities; linguicism; assimilation/integration; concepts related to the speech and intellectual development of bilinguals and multilinguals (like semilingualism, or the relation between language systems in simultaneous language acquisition, surface and cognitive language competence, Cummins’ threshold hypothesis, and the hypothesis of the interdependence of language proficiency); concepts related to social psychological connections of bilingualism and multilingualism, like diglossia, or functions of speech and language; or concepts related to such pedagogical questions as the optimal age to start with the institutional teaching of a second language, were taken mostly from developmental and educational psychology, cognitive neurosciences, and sociolinguistics. The third chapter of the book deals with a psychological analysis of the balance-dominant and coordinate-compound types of bilingualism, integrated with research on associations and meaning, and models of bilingual and multilingual functioning. Chapter IV discusses multilingualism from the perspective of developmental psychology and personality psychology and is devoted to the relation of multilingualism and intellectual development, multilingualism and memory research from a developmental perspective (storing, retaining and recalling information), and to multilingualism and metalinguistic development. Chapter V is about the social psychology of multilingualism. Issues of biculturalism and multiculturalism, multiple acculturation, contact variants of bilinguals’ and multilinguals’ languages, and the decrease of linguistic and cultural diversity and their consequences are discussed in this section. The sixth and final chapter is devoted to the educational aspects of the psychology of multilingualism. It contains knowledge about glottodidactics and theories of transfer, and about models (typologies) of bilingual/multilingual education. This portion ends with dilemmas on choosing and changing the language of instruction in the education of (indigenous) minority and majority students. A short notice concerning the structure of the book chapters might be of interest to the readers. In this book, I tried not to break the basic flow of the main text with digressions. However, since this field of research is very fragmented and diverse, and the readers may also have an unequal level of earlier information from certain fields, at the end of each chapter, notes are given—sometimes even in more detail than the main text. These notes are especially important for those who already have basic knowledge in this field but are interested in putting it in a broader theoretical context. So, the notes are primarily for readers who intend to deal more thoroughly with the psychology of multilingualism. References are also included at

The Psychology of Multilingualism: Concepts, Theories and Application

ix

the end of each chapter. In addition, across the whole text, the term multilingual (meaning more than one language) is used, except in cases where the source cited explicitly refers to the number of languages. The book ends with three things: a selection of sources which were used in its composition but which were not cited in the References; an author index; and a subject index. The work may be of interest to researchers and university students in psychology, linguistics (theoretical and applied) and education, at all levels of study. It may be useful for professionals, language teachers, translators and interpreters, school leaders, programme designers, policymakers, and also for parents, because more and more children grow up multilingually in our globalised world. Also, as a psychologist by training, in the preface I wish to emphasise the following: the psychology of multilingualism is, in my view, today one of the sciences of psychology, which can be defined as the study of one’s inner life, experiences and behaviour in different multilingual settings—be they familial, neighbourly, educational, professional, regional or national. My approach investigates the processes of transforming messages into thoughts and thoughts into messages, receiving and sending messages, and all the related phenomena (associated with a myriad of internal and external determinants), but in situations when more than one language is at stake. As Marian and Shook (2012, p. 1) state: “We are surrounded by language in nearly every waking moment of our lives. We use language to communicate our thoughts and feelings, to connect with others and identify with our culture, and to understand the world around us. And for many people, this rich linguistic environment involves not just one language but two or more. In fact, the majority of the world’s population is bilingual or multilingual”. All this is reason enough for this intriguing segment of reality to become the subject of study of a particular psychological field. Novi Sad, December 2019 The author

References Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1982). Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Clevedon, Avon: Tieto Ltd.

x

Preface

Marian, V., & Shook, A. (2012, September). The cognitive benefits of being bilingual. In Cerebrum: the Dana forum on brain science (Vol. 2012). Dana Foundation.

CHAPTER I PSYCHOLOGY OF MULTILINGUALISM AS A FIELD OF RESEARCH: ITS TOPIC(S), TASKS, PLACE IN THE SYSTEM OF SCIENCES, DEVELOPMENT, METHODS OF RESEARCH, CHARACTERISTICS, AND DOMAINS*

The view that monolingualism is the basic field of research was dominant for a long time, considered by many scientists to be the natural linguistic arrangement. But nowadays in literature on multilingualism (including bilingualism), multilingualism is viewed as the usual state and monolingualism is treated as a peculiar, uncommon phenomenon, given that half of the world’s population lives in some form of a bi- or multilingual linguistic environment1 and uses more than one language. A very informative illustration concerning the use of more than one language in the European Union and some of its member states, and using other languages besides English at home in the USA can be found in Marian and Shook (2012). They refer to a survey conducted by the European Commission in 2006: fifty-six percent of respondents reported being able to speak in a language other than their mother tongue. In some European countries that percentage is even higher—for instance, ninety-nine percent of Luxembourgers and ninety-five percent of Latvians speak more than one language. The same authors state, that “Even in the United States, which is widely considered to be monolingual, one-fifth of those over the age of five reported speaking a language other than English at home in 2007, which is an increase of 140 percent since 1980. Millions of Americans use a language other than English in their everyday lives outside of the home, at work, or in the classroom. Europe and the United States are not alone, either. The *

This chapter is a revised and updated version of the authors’ article: A kétnyelvĦség pszichológiája mint tudományos diszciplína: tárgya, feladata, felépítése, sajátosságai [Psychology of bilingualism as a scientific discipline: its topic, tasks, structure and characteristics] published in the journal KétnyelvĦség [Bilingualism], 1995, 4, 1-10.

2

Chapter I

Associated Press reports that up to sixty-six percent of the world’s children are raised bilingual” (Marian & Shook, 2012, p. 1). Multilingual communities are not only linguistically but usually also ethnically, culturally and religiously heterogeneous. The members of these communities face, on a daily basis, the phenomena—that is, the most usual manifestations—of multilingualism and multiculturalism, bilingualism and biculturalism: in other words, they face the alternate use of two languages and the problem of adjustment to the different system of values and norms often existing between the cultures in question. The study of such situations presents a serious challenge for a large number of sciences (linguistics, psychology, pedagogy, sociology, history, demography, and neurology; as well as the hybrid sciences, like cognitive neuroscience, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, etc., which were created on the boundaries between some of these sciences). Although a vast amount of information has been gathered on the most diverse aspects of the abovementioned phenomena, within what is proven by the extent of literature on bilingualism and multilingualism2 today we can only speak of an integral science that studies multilingualism and the related phenomena hypothetically. The reason for this is that it is a broad field of research which is much divided: it is comprised of different disciplines and fields of research, from which the science of multilingualism as an independent and integrating discipline is slowly emerging. There are some palpable signs of this synthesis: some fields of research devoted to multilingualism can use findings from other fields with similar interests more and more frequently for expanding or checking their findings. One of these fields of research is the psychology of multilingualism. Its task is to answer the following questions: Who and under what kind of circumstances will become multilingual? How do the different types of multilingualism come into being? What are the psychological aspects of multilingualism and multiculturalism? How do early multilingualism and other developing psychological functions relate to each other? Why do the various types of multilingualism cause the personality to develop in different ways, and for certain dispositions to emerge in different extents and directions? Beyond these general questions, some more specific ones are also present, for example, what are anomie, double semilingualism, surface and cognitive linguistic competence, bilingual and multilingual education/instruction in two or more languages, and what are their psychological effects? How does the chosen language of instruction affect students’ development of personality in culturally and linguistically heterogeneous communities? Why does the exchange of language used at

Psychology of multilingualism as a field of research

3

home when a different language is used at school have unequal consequences for students belonging to the linguistic majority and the linguistic minority, respectively? Why do students with a low cognitive linguistic preparedness underachieve in school? It becomes evident from the questions that the topic of the psychology of multilingualism3 is the study of the psychological regularities of multilingualism and the related phenomena, especially their effects on one’s inner life, experiences, and behaviour. If we emphasise in the given definition these psychological aspects, then we separate the psychology of multilingualism from the disciplines which also deal with these phenomena, but which do not deal with their psychological components. At the same time, we separate it from other psychological disciplines if we determine as its emphasis the study of multilingualism, given the distinct interests of other psychological disciplines. From the perspective of the system of sciences, the psychology of multilingualism is bivalent, as it closely relates to the sciences of multilingualism as well as psychology. Its development underlines this claim. Even before the advent of the psychology of bilingualism and multilingualism, numerous psychological disciplines were faced with the phenomena specific to heterogeneous communities. However, because of their subject, their focus was not on bilingualism or multilingualism, they rather studied it along their way towards seeking the answers to other psychological problems which were of greater importance to them. (One of these problems is the relationship between thought and speech; another is the influence on development of a more diverse multilingual and multicultural social environment, which is different from a monolingual and monocultural one. For the study of these issues, bi- and multilingual individuals are very convenient subjects, because possible changes occurring in their thinking when they switch from one language to another—which they may speak at a different level of proficiency—can be scrutinized. This is something that monolingual individuals are not, or are less, suitable for.) Among the psychological disciplines, both developmental psychology and developmental psycholinguistics have studied the effects of early multilingualism, mostly bilingualism, on the development of personality (especially cognitive development, i.e. speech development and the development of general intelligence), while social psychology has dealt with the types of bilingual and multilingual situations and their influence on socialization. Educational psychology has been concerned with the curricula of heterogeneous communities and their consequences, experimental

4

Chapter I

psycholinguistics has focused on verbal behaviour occurring in bilingual and multilingual situations and the relationship between linguistic systems, and both psychophysiology and neuropsychology have studied the physiological and neurological basis of bi- and multilingualism. The psychology of multilingualism systematized and synthesized the knowledge of these disciplines, concentrating its research on multilingualism and its related phenomena, and taking into account what other non-psychological disciplines—primarily linguistics and, more recently, sciences—claim about multilingualism. In this sense, the psychology of multilingualism can be characterised as an interdisciplinary field of research situated at the intersection of the domains of several sciences; it is a field in which the psychological viewpoint dominates, and it uses in its research methods applied in psychology. Its essential method is observation, from accidental observation through systematic observation to natural and laboratory experiments. The psychology of multilingualism also applies transversal and longitudinal research, but experiments using control groups are especially frequent. In these experiments, monolingual groups that have been equalized in terms of the relevant factors with bilingual or multilingual groups, or equalized groups that belong to different bi- or multilingual levels are compared to reveal the possible differences attributable to multilingualism that exist between them (Hornberger et al., 1997; Sanz & Lado, 2008). Thus, the psychology of multilingualism does not deal with a new subject that has not been looked into by other sciences, but facilitates the more detailed understanding of a group of phenomena that is also dealt with in other sciences by analyzing the mutual subject of their interest from the psychological point of view. Since its subject is defined, it uses a relatively structured body of knowledge and has an appropriate methodology and terminology; it deals with solvable problems; and it possesses all the characteristics which are usually typical of empirical scientific disciplines or fields of research. Apart from the aforementioned general questions (topics, tasks, development, methods and tools of research, and the terminology [which is presented in the next chapter of this book devoted to the concepts used in the psychology of multilingualism]), the following domains belong to the system of the psychology of multilingualism:

Psychology of multilingualism as a field of research

5

1. The psychological analysis of the types of bilingualism and multilingualism, focusing on the relationship between the languages spoken by multilingual individuals and on the connections between the language systems. This field of the psychology of multilingualism has developed from research in experimental psychology and experimental psycholinguistics, and it studies multilingualism from the point of view of these two disciplines. 2. The investigation of multilingualism from the perspective of developmental psychology and the psychology of personality. These perspectives study the manifold aspects of personality development in heterogeneous environments and have many common features with developmental psycholinguistics. 3. The social psychology of multilingualism, which looks into multiculturalism and also addresses the psychological aspects of contact linguistics. 4. The educational psychology of multilingualism. This domain analyses the pedagogical questions in heterogeneous communities, i.e. it mainly concerns the issue of bilingual and multilingual education. This book, after two introductory chapters, follows the domains of the psychology of multilingualism in the order listed here.

Notes 1 It was one of the pioneers of sociolinguistics (Mackey, 1967) who greatly contributed to the prevalence of this view. He divided the number of languages in the world (about 7000) with the number of countries (about 200). The result convincingly proved that bi- and multilingualism, by its scope alone, deserves the due attention of science. Ever since then many researchers have referred to the fact that the number of languages spoken in the world (according to different estimations this number has varied over time between 2,800 and 10,000) is thirty, perhaps even forty times greater than the number of countries, which unanimously indicates that there are a great number of bilingual or (more often) multilingual and very few monolingual states or regions. Today's situation is very similar: the number of states is over 200, but it is estimated that there are about 7000 languages, and their exact number is still impossible to determine because of the lack of precise linguistic criteria for distinguishing between languages and dialects. (Besides the linguistic criteria, some other criteria are also used, but they are equally very problematic. One of these is the possibility of mutual communication: if the mutual communication between speakers is successful, according to some researchers they speak variants of the same language. However, this criterion

6

Chapter I

cannot always be applied. For example, Danish and Norwegian are nowadays considered to be different languages, although speakers of these languages can understand each other's language fairly well [the Norwegians especially claim that they understand the speech of the Danish]. However, today it is widely accepted that these are different languages, with the explanation that behind them there is a different cultural heritage. For the distinction between language and dialect, the name of the language has also been proposed, but with a similar lack of success. It is considered that there are about 40,000 names for different languages, but for some languages, there are several names. The same language is called something different by its speakers and their neighbours. A good example for this is India: in 1961 it was registered 1652 different languages or different languages names [Mallikarjun, 2002], although, according to the Central Institute of Indian Languages—an Indian research and teaching institute based in Mysore, founded in 1969—there are ‘only’ about 400.) Today the most useful source on languages of the world can be found on the Ethnologue website (http://www.ethnologue.com, see also Skutnabb-Kangas, 2004, and Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2013). This catalogue holds different statistical data on world languages, even though it also contains many insufficiently verified pieces of information, some of which are not questioned by most researchers. So, there is a consensus on the estimate that there are, as mentioned, around seven thousand spoken languages. (Due to lack of sources, the number of sign languages is not possible even to estimate. Skutnabb-Kangas [2002] believed their number to probably be the same as the number of spoken languages.) Also, there is an agreement on the following facts: most languages are spoken by only five to six thousand people (estimation made by Posey, 1999); the number of languages spoken by over ten million speakers is not higher than 80; most languages (over 80%) are spoken within one country; around 95% of languages are spoken by fewer than a million speakers; around five thousand languages are used by fewer than 100 thousand people; and three thousand languages have fewer than ten thousand speakers. As many as 500 languages are used by fewer than 100 people (Phillipson & Skuttnab-Kangas, 2013; SkuttnabKangas, 2004). If we group languages according to the number of mother tongue speakers, then the number of languages with more than one million speakers (these are the so-called “big” and “medium” sized languages) is about 310, and they are spoken by more than 95% of the world's population. The remaining several thousand languages are shared by only 5% of the world's population (Göncz, 2016). When it comes to the geographical distribution of languages, the following indicators are accepted: Europe 3% (around 230 languages); America 15%; Pacific Ocean area 19%; Africa 30%; and Asia 32% (Göncz, 2014; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2002). The most diverse area in the number of languages is Papua New Guinea with over 850 languages (11 extinct), followed by Indonesia with 670. More than 200 languages are spoken in Nigeria, India, Cameroon, Australia, Mexico, Zair, and Brazil, while another 13 countries use over 100 languages (Skuttnab-Kangas,

Psychology of multilingualism as a field of research

7

2004). Europe is, linguistically, as well as in its animal and plant diversity, quite poor compared to other parts of the world (Göncz, 2014). 2 In recent decades, few topics have become so internationally important as bi- and multilingualism and their related phenomena. Proof for this is the numerous journals dealing with bi- and multilingualism from very different perspectives and with multifarious approaches. Some of these printed in English are: Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, International Journal of Bilingualism, International Journal of Multilingualism, The Japan Journal of Bilingualism, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, Plurilingua, Multilingua, Bilingual Family Newsletter, Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, Journal of Multicultural Discourse, and Bilingual Research Journal. There is also the Bilingualism Database, compiled at the School of Education at The University of Birmingham (as well as many other databases with thousands of bibliographic units). In this database there is a huge list of references concerning bilingualism/multilingualism and:

Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ

identity family language rights age groups neurolinguistics speech disorders health acquisition and development education/special education sociolinguistics multiculturalism professional issues and assessment and descriptions of languages.

There is also a substantial list concerning linguistic minority communities and the teaching of English as a second foreign language. In the past thirty-five years, in order of appearance, interdisciplinary works of comprehensive character on bilingualism were written (or edited) by: Baetens Beardsmore (1982), Grosjean (1982), Skutnabb-Kangas (1984), Göncz (1985), Baker (1988), Hamers & Blanc (1989), Hoffmann (1991), Hoffmann (1992), Edwards (1995), Romaine (1995), Baker (1998), Baker & Prys Jones (1998), Cenoz (1998), Bartha (1999), Bialystok (2001), Pavlenko (2005), Wei (2007, 2010), Auer & Wei (2009), Baker (2011), Field (2011), Aronin & Singleton (2012), Bhatia & Ritchie (2012), Edwards (2012), Stavans & Hoffmann (2015), MartinJones, Blackledge & Creese (2015), Smidt (2016), Maher (2017), Martin-Jones & Martin (2017), Wright (2017), and Horner & Weber (2018), to cite just some. However, there were before and after this period countless books or monographlength works (or near monograph-length articles) that summed up knowledge

8

Chapter I

related to problems of bilingualism or multilingualism from the perspective of a particular science (linguistics, psychology, pedagogy, and sociolinguistics) or in connection with certain other topics. Here is a list of such publications, without aiming at completeness, published over the past forty-five years: Lambert & Tucker (1972), Genc [Göncz] (1976, 1981), Clyne (1982), Göncz (1982), Taeschner (1983), Cummins (1984), Göncz (1984, 1985), Cummins & Swain (1986), Harding & Riley (1986), Homel, Palij & Aronson (1987), De Houwer (1990), Jacob & Jordan (1993), Mohanty (1995), Hornberger et al., (1997), Skutnabb-Kangas (1997), Lanstyák & Szabómihály (1998), Navracsics (1999), Deuchar & Quay (2000), Lanza (2004), Fenyvesi (2005), Brisk (2006), Garcia & Baker (2007), Heller (2007), Yip & Matthews (2007), Garcia (2008), Sanz & Lado (2008), Wei (2008), Cenoz (2009), Kroll & DeGroot (2009), Pavlenko (2009), Cook & Bassetti (2010), Pavlenko (2011), Fabbro (2013), Grosjean (2013), Hernandez (2013), Mueller-Gathercole (2013), Shin (2013), Gorter, Zenotz, & Cenoz (2014), Marschark, Tang & Knoors (2014), Weber (2014), Andrews (2015), Armon-Lotem, De Jong & Meir (2015), GabryĞ-Barker (2016), Nicoladis & Montanari (2016), Pauwells (2016), Vaid (2016), Cenoz, Gorter, & May(2017), GabryĞ-Barker, Gaáajda, Wojtaszek, & Zakrajewski (2017), de Zarobe & de Zarobe (2017), May & Lin (2017), Balls Organista, Marín & Chun (2018), Altarriba & Heredia (2018), and Aronin, Hornsby & KiliaĔska-Przybyáo (2018). 3

Determining the topic of a scientific discipline, or a research field is an issue of fundamental importance. This step has at least three functions: first, it determines the segment of reality that will be researched, and second, the appropriate research methods. (There are, of course, some exceptions as well. For example, the behaviouristic approach in psychology has reversed this order: the advocates of behaviourism drop first the introspective method as invalid for researching psychological reality, taking objective observation as, according to them, the valid research method, thereby defining as the subject of psychology the phenomena which manifest themselves in a way accessible for everyone, i.e. they defined the topic of psychology as the science of behaviour.) The third function of the precise determination of the topic is that it allows for the delimitation of the discipline from other sciences, that is, it places the discipline in the scientific system. This is especially important with regards to the so-called interdisciplinary sciences, which have the same or a similar subject of investigation. Therefore, when dealing with science, the first step is to determine its topic. Together with the definition of the topic of an empirical discipline, it is also necessary to determine its tasks. The psychology of multilingualism, like every empirical science or field of research, has theoretical and practical (applicative) tasks. The theoretical tasks of every science, based on experience, are to find answers to three basic questions: what, how, and why. To the question of ‘what’ the sciences offer an answer with a description. The results of the answers to this question are the definitions of the phenomena researched by a science and the classification of these phenomena. Applying this to the field of the psychology of multilingualism, the question of ‘what’ can be concretized in the following ways:

Psychology of multilingualism as a field of research

9

What is multilingualism? What is multiculturalism? What are their most common manifestations? What do we mean by concepts like mother tongue, second language, double semilingualism, diglossia, anomie, surface and cognitive linguistic competence, multilingual education, etc.? To the question of ‘how’ the sciences formulate their answers we can also offer a description. The question can refer to two things. First, it can refer to how the phenomena develop and change, and second to how they are connected. In formulating answers to these questions the results give us scientific laws. These are universal attitudes and should have unlimited validity in space and time. Concretized on the field of the psychology of multilingualism, the question of ‘how’ can be formulated as follows: How, or under what circumstances does someone become a multilingual person? How do different types of multilingualism come into being? How can we define the relation between early multilingualism and other developing functions and processes? How does the language of instruction affect the personality development of students with different home languages? To the question of ‘why’ we can say that the sciences formulate their answers through explanations. These answers refer to causal relations, i.e., what are the necessary conditions for a phenomenon to occur? With such answers, we are making predictions. Knowing the conditions, they can be intentionally created provoking the phenomenon we want; in other words, we manage phenomena. That is, in fact, the final goal of every science. (Such efficacy raises many moral dilemmas regarding the possibility of misusing scientific knowledge, which is more often an issue in more developed sciences. The danger of manipulation of scientific knowledge and of its misuse is particularly present in the sciences dealing with people.) Some of the ‘why’ questions in the psychology of multilingualism are: Why are some types of multilingualism connected with undesirable personality development, and why may some other types cause a more complete realisation of human potential? Why does the change of the language of instruction, concerning the family–school relation, have a different impact on students from the dominant language group (who belong to the majority language community), in comparison to students from the dominated language group (who belong to the minority language group)? Why does surface linguistic competence cause lower school achievement than student ability warrants? In the psychology of multilingualism, the question of ‘what’ dominates, although there are trials to give answers to the other two questions as well. Thanks to these trials, scientific knowledge is structured in a similar way to in other empirical sciences. The structure of scientific knowledge in empirical sciences can be represented by a hierarchical model. At the lowest, first level, are the observed phenomena, which are nearest to experience. When we observe what is common amongst them, we get scientific concepts (the second level), as answers to the question of ‘what’. They can have the status of an intervening variable (operationally and unambiguously defined, with a certain stimulus and with the response to this stimulus), or they can have the status of hypothetical constructs, which we refer to on a hypothetical, mostly physiological basis. For example, the construct of compound bilingualism (see Chapter II) has the status of an intervening variable if it is operationally defined as the matching of the semantic

10

Chapter I

systems of two languages (because they were acquired from the same sources), and can be determined through the overlap of profiles on the semantic differential scales in the connotative meaning for equivalent words in the two languages. However, if we additionally explain how the connotative meaning of words is acquired (through the association of the same experience to the verbal signs in the same contexts), and we hypothesize the existence of the same representational mediational processes in the two languages as equivalents for the concept of meaning then this concept has the status of a hypothetical construct. On the third level are the scientific laws and the narrower theories, reached through generalizing concepts. They can be more or less empirically grounded. In the less empirically grounded laws or narrower theories, there is a lot of guessing, they seek to replace the verified, tested knowledge. The same goes for the wider theories, which constitute the fourth component (or level) of the scientific knowledge. On the fifth level are the scientific systems which are always hypothetical, often they only replace and do not synthesize tested knowledge. The answers to the question of ‘what’, and especially to the questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ in the psychology of multilingualism are far from being satisfactory and complete. The concepts are poorly defined, operationally speaking. As for the question of ‘how’, the answers are not in the real sense scientific laws, but more empirical generalizations that do not have a universal character; they tend only to be regularities which are valid under certain conditions, and only in certain cultures or historical periods. For example, the observed regularity in the psychology of multilingualism that in a subtractive multilingual situation (meaning unequal evaluation of languages) there is a gradual replacement of one language with another, and that this process is connected to the so-called balance effect or double semilingualism (unsatisfactory knowledge of both of the languages). Because it does not state under which conditions this association is valid, it is more of an empirical generalisation than a scientific law. The same goes for the Cummins’ threshold hypothesis, a kind of narrower theory, in which it is claimed that it is necessary to overcome the beginning stages of bilingualism to endure the negative effects of bilingualism on cognitive functioning, i.e. that it is necessary to develop a high degree of bilingual competence before the potential advantage comes to the fore. Regarding theories, they, as in all less developed fields, more replace than integrate tested knowledge. Theories are rare, they are of an inductive and functional type, and give explanations only for narrow domains. They can explain, for example, the connections between the language systems of bi- or multilingual individuals and the conditions which determine them, or the effects of multilingualism. For example, besides the previously mentioned compound bilingualism, there is a coordinate type of bilingualism as well. This division is the result of a theory regarding the relationship between the language systems of bilinguals on the semantic level. Namely, according to the view of Ervin & Osgood (1954), individuals who acquire languages from separate sources associate different experiences with them, so on the level of connotative or

Psychology of multilingualism as a field of research

11

affective meaning their language systems will stay relatively separated, and a coordinate type of bilingualism is developed. (Acquiring languages from the same sources leads to compound bilingualism.) Elements of wider theories can be discerned in the models of multilingual education, but it is not justifiable to speak about scientific systems in this field for now. Based on what has been said so far, it can be concluded that one characteristic of the recent psychology of multilingualism is that there are only a few well-defined concepts; instead of scientific laws there are empirical generalizations, the number of theories is small, and they are also of a narrow scale, with a lot of hypothetical claims. It is a field of knowledge that is poorly integrated, there are many theoretical contradictions in it, and the possibilities of its application are modest. There are also many difficulties in the application of knowledge, and thus the fulfilment of the practical tasks of science. First, the knowledge itself, which is often gathered in controlled conditions is not fully compatible with real-life situations. Second, its application most often refers to specific population groups, and in such cases, stakeholders take into account many other circumstances, and not only the knowledge offered by science. Despite these restrictions, today it is already acceptable to say that the psychology of multilingualism offers certain guidelines, which can indicate what conditions are needed to create those forms of multilingualism that contribute to the fuller realisation of human potential. The psychology of multilingualism has certain characteristics which are common to all sciences, but also some specific features connected to its special subject of study. The common feature with other sciences is the tendency to apply the scientific method to solvable problems. (Arts are also devoted to solvable problems but they do not apply the scientific method, whereas metaphysic disciplines raise issues that are not solvable with normal human capacities and do not apply the scientific method, instead using a set of formalized procedures which allow for answers). One of the special features of the field under discussion here is its interdisciplinarity, but with a different meaning than this notion has in certain natural sciences, like in biochemistry or geophysics. These interdisciplinary hard sciences have a previously unproven, new subject of interest, which has remained unexamined between the mother-sciences. The psychology of multilingualism is not a new subject of investigation, because multilingualism has been researched earlier in some psychological disciplines and other sciences. This means that its subject is not new, but that it is approached from a wider perspective, taking over and systemizing knowledge about multilingualism from other psychological disciplines. It also takes into account what other sciences have discovered about multilingualism, and tries to contribute to new knowledge concerning this intriguing phenomenon.

12

Chapter I

Chapter summary The psychology of multilingualism investigates the psychological regularities of multilingualism and its related phenomena. As an empirical discipline it deals with the psychological aspects of different multilingual situations and with the effects of such situations on individuals’ behaviour and experience as well. First and foremost, though, it has directed its interest to interactions between these two groups of phenomena. Its task is to answer the questions of what, how, and why. Description should be used to define and classify the mentioned phenomena and to determine basic concepts (answering the question of what). To answer the question of how, we should describe how the phenomena happen and are specified, using scientific laws, and determine what kind of relationship exists among the phenomena. Concerning the question of why means investigating causal relationships. Although the answers to these questions are still far away from being satisfactory, the psychology of multilingualism has arrived, through generalising observed facts, to scientific concepts, to scientific laws, and some theories of a narrow volume. Broader theories and the scientific system are the missing components from the structure of scientific knowledge which is characteristic for all empirical sciences. Since the psychology of multilingualism has a defined area of investigation and structured knowledge and holds possession of appropriate procedures for collecting new knowledge, it has, like every empirical science, as its main characteristic the application of the scientific method to solvable problems. In this area of research, there is thus far a huge number of weakly connected facts with little possibilities for application.

References Altarriba, J., & Heredia, R. R. (Eds.). (2018). An Introduction to Bilingualism. Principles and Processes. Routledge. (2nd Edition). Andrews, E. (2015). Neuroscience and Multilingualism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Armon-Lotem, Sh., De Jong, J., & Meir, N. (Eds.). (2015). Assessing Multilingual Children: Disentangling Bilingualism from Language Impairment, Bristol: Channel View Publications. Aronin, L., & Singleton, D. (2012). Multilingualism, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Aronin, L., Hornsby, M., & KiliaĔska-Przybyáo, G. (Eds.). (2018). The Material Culture of Multilingualism (Vol. 36), Springer.

Psychology of multilingualism as a field of research

13

Auer, P., & Wei, L. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1982). Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Clevedon, Avon: Tieto Ltd. Baker, C., & Prys Jones, S. (1998). Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (1988). Key Issues in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education (Vol. 35). Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (Vol. 79, Chapter 10). Multilingual Matters. Balls Organista, P., Marín, G., & Chun, K. M. (2018). Multicultural Psychology. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Bartha, Cs. (1999). A kétnyelvĦség alapkérdései. BeszélĘk és közösségek [Basic questions in bilingualism. Speakers and Communities]. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó. Bhatia, T. K., & Ritchie, W. C. (Eds.). (2012). The handbook of bilingualism. John Wiley & Sons. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Brisk, M. E. (2006). Bilingual Education. From Compensatory to Quality Schooling. Routledge. (2nd Edition). Cenoz, J. (1998). Multilingual education in the Basque Country. Multilingual Matters, 175-191. Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards multilingual education: Basque educational research from an international perspective (Vol. 72). Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J., Gorter, D., & May, S. (Eds.). (2017). Language awareness and multilingualism. Springer. Clyne, M. (1982). Multilingual Australia. Melbourne: River Seine Publications. Cook, V., & Bassetti, B. (Eds.) (2010). Language and Bilingual Cognition. Country Hove, UK: Taylor and Frances. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in Education. Aspects of theory, research and practice. Routledge. De Houwer, A. (1990). The acquisition of two languages from birth: A case study. Cambridge University Press. de Zarobe, Y. R., & de Zarobe, L. R. (Eds.). (2018). Multilingualism and L2 Acquisition: New Perspectives on Current Research. Routledge.

14

Chapter I

Deuchar, M., & Quay, S. (2000). Bilingual acquisition: theoretical implications of a case study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edwards, J. (1995). Multilingualism, Routledge. Edwards, J. (2012). Multilingualism: Understanding Linguistic Diversity. New York: Continuum Publishing. Fabbro, F. (2013). The neurolinguistics of bilingualism: An introduction. Psychology Press. Field, F. W. (2011). Key Concepts in Bilingualism. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Göncz, L. (1985). A kétnyelvĦség pszichológiája. A magyar-szerbhorvát kétnyelvĦség lélektani vizsgálata [The psychology of bilingualism. Psychological investigations of Hungarian-Serbo-Croatian bilingualism]. Újvidék: Forum. Göncz, L. (2014). Maintenance of languages and cultures of indigenous communities in Central-Eastern-Europe through education: psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives. In Szalma, J. (Ed.). Strateški pravci razvoja društvenih nauka, kultura i umetnosti u Vojvodini do 2020. godine. Zbornik radova-2014 [Strategic directions of the development of social sciences, cultures and arts in Vojvodina until 2020. Proceedings-2014] (pp. 56-80). Novi Sad: Vojvoÿanska akademija nauka i umetnosti. ISBN 978-86-85889-49-3 Göncz L. (2016). A pedagógusok szerepe a biokulturális diverzitás megĘrzésében pszichológiai megközelítésben [The role of teachers in preserving biocultural diversity: psychological perspective] In Gazdag, V., Karmacsi Z., & Tóth. E. (Eds.). Értékek és kihívások-Nyelvi és kulturális sokszinĦség Kelet-Közép-Európában II. kötet [Values and challenges-Linguistic and cultural diversity in Eastern-Central Europe Vol. II] (pp. 202-210). Ungvár: Autdor-Shark. Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. (1989). Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoffmann, Ch. (1991). An Introduction to Bilingualism. London: Longman. Hoffmann, Ch. (1992). Introduction to Bilingualism. Routledge. Hornberger, N. H., Corson, D., & Corson, P. (Eds.). (1997). Research Methods in Language and Education: 8 (Vol. 8). Springer Science & Business Media. Horner, K., & Weber, J. J. (2018). Introducing Multilingualism. Routledge. Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual Education of Children: The St. Lambert Experiment. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Psychology of multilingualism as a field of research

15

Mackey, W. F. (1967). Bilingualism as a World Problem / Le bilinguisme: phenomène mondial. Montreal: Harvest Hoose. Maher, C. J. (2017). Multilingualism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mallikarjun, B. (2002). Mother tongues of India according to the 1961 census. Language in India, 2. Marian, V., & Shook, A. (2012, September). The cognitive benefits of being bilingual. In Cerebrum: the Dana forum on brain science (Vol. 2012). Dana Foundation. Martin-Jones, M., Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (Eds.). (2015). The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. Routledge. Martin-Jones, M., & Martin, D. (Eds.). (2017). Researching Multilingualism. Routledge. Pavlenko, A. (2005). Bilingualism and Thought. Oxford University Press. Posey, D. A. (1999). Introduction: Culture and nature-the inextricable link. In Posey, D. (Ed.). Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. A Complementary Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. New York: UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) & Leiden: Intermediate Technologies, Leiden University), 3-18. Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism. Malden: Wiley Blackwell. Sanz, C., & Lado, B. (2008). Third language acquisition research methods. Encyclopedia of language and education, 10, 113-135. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1984). Bilingualism or not: the education of minorities. Clevedon: Mutilingual Matters (translation and revision of: 1981. Tvåspråkighet. Lund: Liber Läromedel). Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2002). Linguistic human rights in education. Western hypocrisy in European and global language policy. In Lahdelma, T., Jankovics, J., Nyerges, J. & Laihonen, P. (Eds.). Power and Culture, Plenary Sessions: 5th International Congress of Hungarian Studies (pp. 115-156). University of Jyväskylä. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2004). The right to mother tongue medium education – the hot potato in human rights instruments. Opening plenary at the 2nd Mercator International Symposium, Tarragona, Spain, 27-28 February 2004. http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/pdf/simp-skuttnab.pdf Smidt, S. (2016). Multilingualism in the Early Years. Extending the limits of our world. Routledge. Stavans, A., & Hoffmann, Ch. (2015). Multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wei, L. (Ed.). (2007). The Bilingualism Reader, 2nd edition. Routledge. Wei, L. (Ed.). (2010). Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Routledge.

16

Chapter I

Wright, W. E. (2017). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Yip, V., & Matthews, S. (2007). The Bilingual Child: Early Development and Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CHAPTER II THE CONCEPTS OF THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MULTILINGUALISM*

2.1. Basic concepts and concept-related knowledge derived from the psychology of language The psychology of multilingualism deals with the application of systems of signs and rules belonging to two or more languages in various speech situations, and the consequences from these applications. This is why for the interpretation of observed phenomena and the results of empirical research on multilingualism, the use of the knowledge acquired on speech and language by psychology and the related interdisciplinary fields of research (psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, psychophysiology, neuropsychology, and cognitive neuroscience) is necessary. Therefore, let us start by presenting some of this knowledge. Speech as a system of habits is made possible through the formation of sounds and meaningful sequences of sounds using our speech organs. Pavlov considers speech the second signal system (Windholz, 1990), in which words replace external signs (i.e. the first signalling system), become the signal of signals. The first signal system (sounds, smells) is common in humans and animals. Animals can learn the meaning of various natural signals, but cannot learn signals that represent other signals. According to Pavlov, speech is a specific human characteristic, an important evolutionary attainment. While speech is related to individuals, language is a communal phenomenon, a system of signs and rules, which is turned into speech through the process of actualization. In terms of Chomsky's theory of generative grammar (Nordquist, 2019), this means *

Some parts of this chapter rely significantly on the monograph-length article of the author entitled “Psychology of bilingualism”, published in Lanstyák, I., & Vanþoné Kremmer, I. (Eds.). (2005). NyelvészetrĘl - Változatosan. Segédkönyv egyetemisták és a nyelvészet iránt érdeklĘdĘk számára [Multi-faceted linguistics. Selected papers for university students and everyone interested in linguistics] (pp. 32-76). Dunaszerdahely, Slovakia: Gramma Nyelvi Iroda.

18

Chapter II

that during the application of language (while speaking) we operate a system of rules which enables us to utter and understand a theoretically infinite number of grammatical sentences which have been created using a finite number of units—that is, the vocabulary and the grammatical rules of a language. All of the several thousand languages existing today are comprised of linguistic strata (Daneš, 1991): each has its sound system (mostly 20 to 37 sounds), its syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and so forth. (Some experts describe the structure of languages as models consisting of two strata, vocabulary and grammar, while others define more, but not more than six levels.) For being able to define speech and language more accurately, it is also important to distinguish linguistic competence from linguistic performance (Nordquist, 2018). Linguistic competence is the grasp of grammatical rules, that is the speaker’s knowledge of the language, which enables them to recognise grammatical mistakes. Some refer to it as the “realm of perfection”, in opposition to linguistic performance, which is referred to as the “linguistic fall”. Linguistic performance refers to the actual, real use of language. During linguistic performance, we sometimes use ungrammatical sentences, because our memory is limited, our attention fluctuates, we make changes to our intended sentences as we speak and, in bi- and multilingual situations the linguistic systems of the two/or more languages may interfere with each other (Bernáth & Révész, 1994). The psychophysiology of speech (Saltzman & Ersner, 1951) studies the peripheral and central organs, which control speech and their functions. The peripheral functions that play a role in speech production and speech perception are connected to the speech organs and the organ of hearing, while the central control functions are ascribed to the cerebral cortex and the sub-cortical sections. Among the speech organs, the vocal cords are the most important. These are two very elastic bundles of muscle. Sound production takes place when a stream of air leaves the lungs. According to the place of their production, sounds are divided into vowels and consonants. We produce vowel sounds when air steam comes from the lungs unimpeded and makes the vocal cords vibrate, while for consonant sounds other speech organs create an obstacle in the way of the air stream. The central control of speech is performed by numerous speech centres (Howard, 1997). The best known are the Broca motor and the Wernicke sensory centres. If these centres are damaged, motor or sensory aphasia will occur, that is the partial or complete loss of speech production or speech perception (Lesser, 1978). These centres are in most cases situated in the left cerebral hemisphere and are closely related to one’s handedness. In the case of right-handed people, these centres are almost without

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

19

exception in the left cerebral hemisphere. In 70% of left-handed people it is also there, while in 15% of them it is in the right hemisphere, and in 15% of them, the centres are dispersed in both hemispheres. This phenomenon, known as cortical speech localization, is the result of lateralization. Speech lateralization (the formation of speech centres, the specialization of the cerebral spheres for controlling speech) takes place in childhood and is closely related to the sensitive period.1 The sensitive (or critical) period is the period of development when a function has to be practised (even if it is strongly hereditary) so that it is retained and developed. The sensitive period for speech development is from the age of one and a half to the age of eight. If a child is exposed to human speech for the first time only after this period, they will not be able to acquire it. (For more information see Note 1 in this chapter.) Nowadays, our knowledge about the physiological mechanisms of speech is still relatively modest. It is dominated by the dynamic speech localization theory, according to which complex psychological processes (one of which is speech) cannot be localized in a specific part of the cortex, but instead always depend on the combination of completely cortical zones. Their control necessitates the synchronized functioning of these zones. The subcortical parts also play a role in this, and all the components contribute to the functioning of the system. While the speech specialization of the (usually left) cerebral sphere is still in progress, the transfer of centres to the non-dominant cerebral hemisphere is possible, if the dominant hemisphere is damaged, which shows the flexibility (“plasticity”) of the cortex.2 Through language acquisition children acquire the rules of the language to which they are exposed. Just like the development of every function, language acquisition develops through stages; that is, the development always goes through the same stages (periods, phases) in the same order. This can refer to the development of the whole function or just some elements of it (for example the whole of speech development or only sentence development). Environmental factors can accelerate or slow down these processes. There are two big stages in the process of speech development taken as a whole: the pre-linguistic and the linguistic one. The pre-linguistic stage lasts until the utterance of the first meaningful word (between the 10th and 15th month). It can be divided into vocalization (until 5th the month) and babbling. Vocalization is an endogenous process that is universal to all children. Deaf children go through it, just as hearing ones do. Vocalization is characterised by sound expansion, that is the number of utterable sounds increases in the beginning and may reach two hundred in total. Under the influence of the language a child is exposed to, the number of sounds it utters decreases

20

Chapter II

(sound contraction), and only those are retained which belong to the sound system of the language spoken in the child’s environment. During babbling, a child uses sound combinations. It understands language before it can speak it. The first meaningful words, holophrases, though single word utterances, bear the meaning of a whole sentence. The number of words is expanded quickly (by about 700 annually), thus the active vocabulary (the number of words used actively) of a child starting school counts 4-5,000 words, with great individual differences. By the age of 15, this number will have increased to 10,000 (the passive vocabulary at this age is at about 30,000), while the vocabulary of an educated adult contains between 25,000 and 250,000 words. (The lexicon of different languages is estimated to contain 800,000 to 1,250,000 words). A child first uses nouns and verbs, later the other parts of speech appear, and by the time they start school, children use every existing part of speech. In the process of sentence formation, there are also linguistic universals (universal rules): one-word sentences are followed by two-word ones, which are followed by the phase of short and full sentences. One of the characteristics of small children’s speech is that its utterances are full of emotions (it does not express the importance of its messages using linguistic means, but it rejoices and shouts), it is not familiar with the notion of unknown words (it interprets every word following its experience) and is characterised by nominal realism3. The pace of speech development depends on the child’s sex, intelligence, health, and family situation. Girls usually have a significant advantage. According to some experts, this is because they are urged to speak more by their environment since this is seen as one of the desirable female features in our culture. According to others, the boys’ disadvantage stems from the fact that fathers are frequently away from home, and thus they cannot serve as models for language acquisition, while the higher number of speech impediments among boys can be attributed to their anxiety because they are punished more strictly and thus frustrated more often. Another reason may be that men’s brains are more asymmetric, which can lead to a greater degree of deviation in their behaviour. If a child starts speaking early, it is certain that they have at least an average IQ, but a few months’ delay does not necessarily point to mental deficiency. Prolonged illnesses or hearing problems may slow down language acquisition. Spoiling a child may lead to anxiety and speech impediments; according to some authors only children who are spoken to more have an advantage, while twins often isolate themselves in their relationship and, since they are not good speech models for each other, then lag in speech development—a

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

21

phenomenon called cryptophasia (Luria & Yudovich, 1972; Zazzo, 1978; Bishop & Bishop, 1998). The child’s class identity, that is to which social group or strata it belongs, can also influence the pace of speech development. Bernstein’s (Bernstein, 1972, 1974a, 1974b) sociological surveys in England show that members of the working and the middle class speak a different language variety, which is proof of the thesis that society and language are closely related and that language reflects social stratification. The language variety spoken by the working class (public language) is characterised by the use of a restricted language code (poorer vocabulary, less shaded use of adjectives and adverbs, stereotypical sentence construction, frequently repeated questions, and use of language that focuses on the content of things rather than their structure and relationship). In the formal language of the middle class, an elaborated language code prevails, with more shaded use of language, and it is difficult to predict which available syntactic version (alluding to the structure of a phenomenon and its relation to other phenomena) speakers will use for continuing the utterance. They are also more critical towards the world in general. Because in schools formal language is required (as the middle class finances them and thus requires them to follow its system of norms), working-class children are less successful due to their language disadvantage, so the social inequalities are reproduced. According to Bernstein, deficient language use affects intellectual functioning unfavourably, but the disadvantage can be overcome by appropriate language training. In psychological theories, views contradicting Bernstein’s opinion on the relation between speech and thought are frequently found. (It is important to stress that Bernstein's results have been questioned several times and Bernstein himself has re-evaluated them also. It is a not uncommon view that the observed linguistic differences are nothing but stylistic variants and do not pertain to the language deprivation of working-class children.) Theories on language development explain the mechanisms which play a role in language acquisition. These theories can be divided into three groups. The behaviouristic theories, which were dominant until the middle of the 20th century, emphasise the importance of the environment (learning). According to them, language acquisition is the same as habit acquisition and can be explained using the mechanisms of classical conditioning and operant learning. Children acquire many discrete (separate) linguistic units initially, and they automatise the use of these through practice. The most important role in this process belongs to the mother, who selectively affirms those utterances of her child that are in accordance with the linguistic habits of the environment. Consequently, the child gradually acquires the phonetic, syntactic, and semantic system

22

Chapter II

of the language. Child language is an imperfect version of the language of adults, and it gradually, through practice and selective affirmation approaches adult language. This theory is relatively successful in explaining the early stages of language acquisition: the mother corrects the sound combinations uttered by her child and urges it to imitate them, or reinforces correct utterances by rewarding them (operant learning). The two events, the utterance and the positive affirmation coincide (they are associated in space and time), which is the basic mechanism of classical conditioning.4 While the behaviourists stressed the importance of learning in the process of language acquisition, Chomsky and the representatives of generative grammar ascribed a pivotal role to hereditary factors. (They do not deny the role of the environment, but this issue is not the focus of their interest.) They argue that, since children acquire language—an extremely complex activity—rather quickly, an invariance can be observed in the appearance of linguistic modes of expressions because the order in which certain phrases and types of sentences appear is universal. And, because children are exposed to their environments’ linguistic performance, which contains fragmentary linguistic material, but they are still able to acquire the grammatical rules of their language, we have to suppose that there is a hereditary faculty in humans to acquire language and that this faculty is to a large extent genetically determined. Chomsky calls this hereditary disposition LAD (language acquisition device), and posits that it takes a relatively low level of environmental influence (stimulation) to turn this faculty into an ability. Although many points in Chomsky’s arguments have been criticised (e.g. baby talk instinctively used with children prefers the use of grammatical rules and partly counterbalances the effects of performance; it is a matter of subjective assessment whether the five years required for language acquisition is a long or short period; language acquisition is not universal, since children apply different strategies for it—some start speaking earlier and use one-word sentences, while others produce sentence-like structures at a later age [that is they do not ‘approach’ language through vocabulary but through the sentence], thereby contradicting Chomsky’s conception of the universal nature of language acquisition), his theory has a great influence even today. However, many experts emphasise that language universals cannot solely be explained through the genetic determinedness of speech, but also through the universal knowledge we learn about the reality that surrounds us. This is a knowledge which children acquire through thinking, the development of which precedes that of speech, and which is reflected in verbal communication. Today’s psycholinguists accept the view that humans are born with a hereditary disposition to acquire and use language

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

23

but stress that this is just a possibility, the development of which necessitates social interaction, and adequate intellectual and other capacities. In language acquisition, the more complex ways of learning (insight learning, learning by models) play an important role, and are not influenced only by the environment through rewards. The process of acquisition is a creative one in which children take an active role in discovering the operational rules and results, eventually enabling them to create an infinite number of grammatical sentences they have never heard before. Child language is not an imperfect form of adult language, but a system which, developing through pre-determinable stages, approaches adult speech. Due to the view that the universals of speech development can be explained through the universal rules of intellectual development (that is their nature is semantic rather than syntactic), the relationship between speech and thought has often come to the foreground. This relationship is viewed in two different ways. The first view (cognitive thesis), supported by Piaget (1964) ascribes greater importance to thought. Its basic thesis claims that speech has no causal role in the formation of new cognitive structures. It may speed up thought development, but it alone cannot create new stages in it (for example it does not facilitate the formation of the notion of conservation, in the possession of which a child proceeds from the pre-operational, lower phase to the phase of concrete operation, which is a more complex stage). Cognitive development is at the same time the condition of speech development, i.e., it precedes it. Even before the appearance of speech, the bases of logical thinking are formed, and the child just expresses through speech what he has concluded through thinking, but without the help of speech. Speech becomes the means of thought, not merely the means of expression, only in the phase of formal operations (between the ages of 12 and 13). (The ability to use speech as the means of thinking in solving complex tasks is today called cognitive linguistic competence. This is what determines one’s success at school [particularly at the higher school levels] and successful thinking in those decontextualised situations in which one can only rely on words. It contrasts with surface linguistic competence, which is the ability to communicate verbally about everyday topics with success, when communication is facilitated by the non-verbal elements of the situation— see 2.3.2 for concepts related to speech- and intellectual development of bilinguals and multilinguals). The role of speech is to focus thought on the relevant elements of the environment and, with its help, we store information. Its acquisition in of itself, though, does not lead to the formation of new cognitive structures.

24

Chapter II

The representatives of the other view are Vygotsky, Sapir and Whorf, as well as the supporters of the view that emphasises the interaction of thought and speech (for example Iviü, 1978). According to Vygotsky (1962), speech “leads” the development of thought. These two functions develop independently from one another until the age of two, then their lines of development meet, and thought becomes verbalized, while speech becomes intellectualized. From this point onwards, speech has a twofold function: social (communicative – communicating the results of one’s thoughts with others) and private (cognitive or intellectual – following and directing thought). Since a child cannot differentiate between these two functions, egocentric speech appears: it follows its actions with loud commentary, not seeing the difference between speaking to itself and speaking to others for social interaction. After the age of seven, a child learns to reduce speech to situations when it wants to communicate, and the cognitive function, as internal speech, becomes internalized. The role of the latter is to plan the hypotheses for the possible solutions to problems and the actions for controlling them. Sapir (1990) and Whorf (1956) are the representatives of the hypothesis of linguistic relativism and determinism. According to the hypothesis of linguistic relativism, different languages code (segment) reality differently and stress different aspects of it. (This is reflected most in vocabulary: the Eskimos have a wide range of words denoting different species of fish and whales, in the African Masai language 17 words refer to the cow, the Arabs have several hundred words referring to the camel, etc.) Everybody accepts this. However, the hypothesis of linguistic determinism, according to which individuals speaking different languages (since their languages focus on different aspects of reality) perceive reality differently and think about it differently, is not widely accepted. According to this theory, the acquired language determines thought, one’s conception of the world. (Whorf gives as evidence the fact that time bears no significance for the Hopi Indians in terms of its influence of the Hopi language since there is no past or future tense in their language, only present.) Psychological opinion maintained for a long time that this theory could not be classed as a scientific hypothesis, that it could not be verified since language cannot be studied independently from the culture it is a part of. The results of more recent studies have mitigated this view (Antoniou & Wright, 2017; Athanasopoulos et al., 2010; Bialystok, 2009; Bialystok, 2017; Bialystok et al., 2009; Bialystok et al., 2012; Kovács & Mehler, 2009).

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

25

According to the thinkers who emphasise the interaction between speech and thought, in the beginning only thought influences speech and speech starts to influence and develop thought later (Iviü, 1978).

2.2. Basic concepts and concept-related knowledge derived from the sciences of multilingualism We shall now define a few concepts of the sciences of bilingualism and multilingualism that are frequently used in the psychology of multilingualism, and without which investigation into and explanation of multilingualism and related phenomena would not be possible. Many of the concepts now belong firmly to the psychology of multilingualism, having been adopted from other disciplines concerned with bilingualism; some on the other hand, have been defined on the basis of psychology's knowledge of the subject. Several of the concepts even today do not have a generally accepted, clear-cut definition, and the interpretations of some are not independent of political views (especially in the case of bilingualism or multilingualism of minority language groups). When interpreting concepts related to social bilingualism, we primarily rely on definitions offered by sociolinguistics, and used by Bartha (1999); Göncz (2015, 2018); Grosjean (1982); Kiss (1994); Lanstyák (1991, 1995); and Skutnabb-Kangas (1984; 1990).5 In the presentation, we use the terms bilingualism and multilingualism interchangeably (either bilingual and multilingual). Previously, the term bilingualism was used more often, the content of which is generally in line with today's more frequently used term multilingualism. Our choice of terms is dependent upon those employed by the researchers we are referring to.

Mother tongue and bi- and multilingualism Researches into multilingualism unavoidably require a definition of the concept of bi-or multilingualism, and the strongly related notion of the mother tongue. Since it is a variable phenomenon, conditioned by a multiplicity of social factors and individual characteristics, bilingualism or multilingualism does not have an all-embracing definition relevant to all its types. Its definition is influenced by the science that the author of the definition is involved in, because this is the factor that determines which of the components or rather criteria of bi- or multilingualism, characteristic to a community or an individual, he or she considers being most important, and therefore absolute, neglecting all other factors. In their definitions the authors often do not intend to define the essence of the

26

Chapter II

phenomenon, rather they aim at drawing the line between the two: bi- or multilingualism and monolingualism, and the notion of the mother tongue related to the latter. A great number of researchers consider monolingualism (even today) to be natural and the norm, and when they define multilingualism use the concept of monolingualism and the mother tongue as the base of comparison. Skutnabb-Kangas, one of the leading figures of researches into bilingualism and multilingualism, also uses the same criteria when she gives a survey of the more frequent definitions of the concepts related to mother tongues and bilingualism (1984, p. 91; 1990, pp. 9, 11). These criteria are the following: age and sequence of the acquisition of the languages, usage or function, preparedness or competence, and attitude. Relying on the definitions used by her but slightly modifying them, we have summarized the possible definitions of ‘mother tongue’ and bilingualism in Tables 1 and 2. Table l. Definitions of mother tongue Criterion

Mother tongue

1. Age of acquisition

- first acquired language/the language of the first lasting communication contact

2. Competence/preparedness - the best-known language (the level of language competence) 3. Function (frequency of language usage)

- the most frequently used language

4. Attitude (identifying oneself or being identified)

- the language one identifies oneself with/the language others identify one with as one's

Lay opinion: the language that we dream, think, count, and write in poems and diaries in Source: Göncz, 1999: 94

We can see that the definition of ‘mother tongue’ changes depending on the given criteria. Accordingly, the language we acquired first, that is, the language that our first lasting communication was built upon can be considered to be the mother tongue, however, the language that we are

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

27

most competent in or the language that we most frequently use can also be the mother tongue in the cases when the criteria for defining it are language competence or function (that is, the frequency of usage). On top of this we can also define as a mother tongue the language that one identifies oneself with (internal identification) or that other people identify one with (external identification). From all this, it follows that depending on the criteria one can have two or more mother tongues, and except the first criterion, one's mother tongue can even change during one's life. Table 2 gives a few definitions of bilingualism. Table 2. Definitions of bilingualism Criteria

A bilingual person is one who

1. The age of acquisition

- has acquired two languages from their family right from the start of their language acquisition, from speakers speaking in their mother tongue - has used two languages as a means of communication right from the start

2. Competence/preparedness (the level of language knowledge)

- is fully competent in two languages - has knowledge of two languages up to the level of the mother tongue - knows two languages equally well - can produce intelligible utterances in another language, too - knows and uses up to a certain level the linguistic structures of another language, too - has been in contact with another language

Chapter II

28

3. Function (the frequency of the use of the languages)

- alternately uses or can use two or more languages in various situations both in speech and writing by choice or as required by the community

4. Attitude (identifying oneself or being identified)

- considers themself to be bilingual and identifies themself with two languages/cultures (or their parts) - is considered by others to be bilingual/a speaker of two languages at the level of the mother tongue

Source Göncz: 1999: 95 Note: Instead of the terms bilingualism/bilingual the terms multilingualism/multilingual can be also used

Similarly to the definition of mother tongue, the definition of bilingualism is also determined by the applied criteria. However, whichever criteria we employ, the definition will never cover all the possible categories of bilingualism. It was Skutnabb-Kangas (1984) who tried to give a comprehensive and at the same time exacting definition. According to her a speaker is bilingual who is able to function in two (or more) languages, either in monolingual or multilingual communities, in accordance with the sociocultural demands made on an individual's communicative and cognitive competence by these communities and by the individual herself, at the same level as native speakers, and who is able to identify positively with both (or all) language groups (and cultures) or part of them. (p. 90)

However, in reality, it would be difficult to comply with the ideal requirements specified in the definition. Hence we must inevitably take into consideration that, in reality, we find types of bilingualism or multilingualism with divergent characteristics and outcomes developing in different environments and different groups of people. And so, when giving a definition of bilingualism or multilingualism that satisfies present-day reality, just like in the case of the mother tongue, it is advisable to start from the given criteria.

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

29

Bilinguals and multilinguals can generally be divided into two major groups depending on how strong the pressure of the environment is to make them bi- or multilingual or what the consequences are in the case that they do not succeed. The first group comprises elite bilinguals/multilinguals and bilingual/multilingual members of the majority language groups who have become bilingual or multilingual by their free choice, to whom bilingualism or multilingualism is not a basic necessity of life, not an unavoidable constraint, but a personal choice made of their own free will. The other group encompasses members of various minority language groups and children who live in bilingual families, and thus for them, the acquisition of two languages is inevitable. There is a great pressure exerted both from the environment and the family on children of language minorities to become bilingual. Failure in achieving this can have catastrophic consequences: in the case that they acquire only the language of their family (this, perhaps, can be imagined in those rare cases when a minority group forms the majority in its closer environment) the range of their possibilities to study and find work becomes very restricted; yet, if they acquire only the language of the wider environment, or they become dominant in that language (which in most instances means identifying oneself with the norms and values of the ruling/dominant group) then their ties with their parents and closer environment loosen up, which leads towards estrangement. In instances where they fail to learn either language at the level of a mother tongue, the previously mentioned consequences have a combined, increased effect. In fact, being bilingual or monolingual is often not a matter of choice, as bilingualism is the inevitable necessity. In the cases of children born to bilingual marriages the situation can become even more complicated, and one of the parents often sacrifices his or her mother tongue and there are even cases when both of them do so (e.g. guest-workers, immigrants). The aforementioned groups of bilinguals and multilinguals, within which, naturally, there are sub-groups as well, can develop in a great number of types both on the personal and on the communal levels of bilingualism or multilingualism. All of them function according to various systems of rules and their influences can have different effects on both the group and the individual: what is valid in one bilingual or multilingual situation need not necessarily be valid in another one that has developed under different circumstances.

Types of bilingualism Table 3 gives a summary of the more significant types of bilingualism.

Chapter II

30

Table 3: Types of bilingualism Criterion

Community Individual Bilingualism

1. Attitude of the community

- additive-subtractive bilingual situation

2. Group

- elite: folk - one-sided: two-sided

3. Consequence

- additive: subtractive

4. Age of second language acquisition

- early: late

5. Sequence of acquisition of languages

- linguism: glottism

6. Level of competence

- dominant: balance - receptive: productive

7.Semantic similarities/differences

- coordinate: compound

8. Way of language acquisition

- “natural”: “supervised” - supervised/school

Source: Göncz 1999: 97 Note: Instead of the terms bilingualism/bilingual the terms multilingualism/multilingual can be also used.

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

31

In the above classification, particular stress is to be put on the additivesubtractive pair of concepts both in the cases of community and individual bilingualism and also in the cases of theory and practice. This distinction was introduced by a Canadian social psychologist (Lambert 1972, 1975, 1977), and has yielded exceptionally fruitful explanations when interpreting the often contradictory results of empirical studies on the possible effects of various bilingual situations. This pair of concepts refers to whether members of a heterogeneous community or group are hierarchized on the basis of their language, ethnicity, culture or religion. We speak of an additive bilingual situation when the nationalities, languages, and cultures in a heterogeneous community are equally appreciated, and they all enjoy an approximately equal status. We have a subtractive situation when the environment regards one of the ethnicities, languages, or cultures as more desirable than the other ones, and gives preference to it. Additive bilingualism, since it implies the acquisition of both languages as an equally desirable goal is not characterised by a change of languages. The acquisition of one language does not happen to the detriment of the other one: the second language develops in addition to and with retention of the first one. The development of personality is more complex in a bilingual environment than in a monolingual one, yet, in many respects, it allows for more complete development of an individual's dispositions. Subtractive situations quite frequently lead to exchanging the language of lower status for the language of preference, or the learning of the latter to the detriment of the former, which leads to what is known as double semilingualism (see later in the concepts related to the speech and intellectual development of bilinguals/multilinguals), that is, inadequate competence in both languages. This can leave undesirable effects in other spheres of one's personality (intellectual and socio-emotional development, the effectiveness of education). In reality, these situations do not come as categories that exclude or oppose each other, but as the extreme points of a continuum with several transitional forms between them. Therefore, in a heterogeneous environment, situations can be more or less either additive or subtractive. (We will return to this division in several parts of this book, especially in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6.) When we are concerned with communal bilingualism, it is important to make a distinction between elite and folk bilingualism. The first one refers to groups of people who study world languages (mostly as their own choice), and foreign language education at school can partly also be regarded as a milder form of elite bilingualism. Folk bilingualism on the

32

Chapter II

other hand is the characteristic feature of language minority groups, whose members are forced to learn the language of the majority to survive without being given the choice. Kiss (1994, p. 102) also makes a distinction between two-sided and onesided bilingualism on the communal level. In the case of two-sided bilingualism, neither of the languages is dominant in the community, it is equally possible to use either of them, and they can be exchanged any time. In the situation of one-sided bilingualism one language group, the minority one, is bilingual; the other one whose mother tongue is the language of the state is monolingual. When tackling types of individual bilingualism, it is important to differentiate between early bilingualism (it generally means bilingualism developed at pre-school age), linguism (simultaneous language acquisition) and glottism (successive acquisition of languages). We refer to "natural" individual bilingualism when a second language is learned from speakers of the other language while "supervised" bilingualism is the product of pedagogical intervention. There is also a difference between passive or receptive bilingualism and productive bilingualism. A receptive bilingual person will understand when they are spoken to in the second language, yet they are not able to produce the same language. Balanced bilingualism means approximately the same level of competence (high or low) in both languages while dominant bilingualism refers to a significantly higher competence in one of the languages. In the case of coordinated bilingualism, the linguistic systems are more independent on the semantic level (because the languages were acquired from different sources, different meanings have become associated to each language), while in the case of compound bilingualism, since both languages were acquired from the same source, the meanings have become less distinctive. We shall discuss some of these types of bilingualism in Chapter 3. There are also other types of bilingualism in addition to the ones we have listed (Göncz, 1999, p. 98). One of them worth pointing out is institutional bilingualism, in the case of which public administration is in two languages in an administrative unit, which makes equal use of both languages for people to remain monolingual. The above-mentioned facts render it possible to describe the various bilingual communities (and bilingual individuals) in the world. If, for example, we analyse the autochthonous Hungarian communities in the Carpathian Basin beyond the borders of Hungary, basing our analysis on the types of bilingualism discussed above, we can conclude that these communities have developed folk and one-sided bilingualism in

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

33

subtractive bilingual situations on the communal level. The members of these speech communities alternately speak two languages during their daily speech activities: their mother tongue and the language of the state they live in. Most of them are Hungarian dominant bilinguals (on average they put the level of their competence in Hungarian higher than their competence in the state language [see Göncz, 2004, p. 190]) and the number of receptive bilinguals is low. Among those widely dispersed, geographically speaking, early (pre-school age) linguism is a dominant characteristic. For those living in areas where they are in the majority glottism, occurring somewhat later in life, is the more characteristic feature. Balanced bilinguals and those coming close to it live, on the whole, in the diaspora. The distinctive features of coordinated bilingualism are more pronounced in those bilinguals who use the two languages in rather detached life spheres. Among the young this is characteristic of those whose schooling is in the mother tongue and therefore, they connect the use of the mother tongue to their families and schools, and use the majority language in their wider surroundings, especially when they are a minority. Because of this, a kind of “division of labour” develops between the languages.6 The “natural” way of acquiring a second language is more prominent in dispersion; the influence of the “supervised” (school) type of learning is greater in blocks. These bilinguals use neither of their languages in the same way as those who are monolingual in those languages since the constant interaction of the language systems leads to contact variants that do not comply with the monolingual norms. Their communicative competence in both languages includes the knowledge of those rules that tell one which language and which variant of that language is to be or can be used in a given speech situation. Their verbal communication, naturally, is as effective as the communication of the monolinguals, only different. Similarly, as carried out in the above overview, a psycholinguistic profile can be done for other language minorities as well.

2.3. Other concepts and concepts-related knowledge used in the psychology of multilingualism 2.3.1. Concepts and concept-related knowledge defining bilingual and multilingual situations In the psychology of multilingualism, primarily in connection with folk bilingualism, as well with the bilingualism of indigenous (autochthonous,

34

Chapter II

native)7 people, the dual concepts of minority/majority are frequently used. It is not the number of group members but rather the power relations that determine the minority or majority status. Consequently, the term minority refers to the oppressed group of people, that is, to those groups in a heterogeneous community that are discriminated against by the more powerful majority group, based on their ethnicity/nationality, language, culture or religion (Little et al., 2016). In other words, the ranking of groups depends on the above-mentioned factors. The term linguicism refers to discrimination based on language, whereas ethnicism means discrimination based on cultural and national properties. Linguicism and ethnicism are milder forms of racism, they reflect ideologies and practices that, in Skutnabb-Kangas’s (1990) definition, “are used to legitimate, effectuate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material and non-material) between groups which are defined based on ethnicity/culture/language” (p. 11). The notions of assimilation and integration are also closely related to this. Assimilation, which is often the aftermath of enforced integration, partly denotes the disappearance of distinctive ethnographic features or the loss of elements of material and non-material culture, and, on the affective/emotional level, the deprivation of attachment (bond) to a certain ethnic group. Parallel to this, characteristics of another culture develop, replacing the old ones, and ties to the other culture begin to develop. Assimilation, therefore, means separation and integration at the same time. People often (mistakenly) simply identify the concept of assimilation with the concept of integration, and by it understand the end product of a process in which the minority group “integrates”, becomes similar, to the majority group. However, by the term integration, it seems more justified to understand, as Skutnabb-Kangas does (1990, p. 12), that the development of common features in a heterogeneous group is a process in which both the majority and the minority groups take part and undergo changes, and therefore the phenomenon should be perceived as one that concerns the whole society.

2.3.2. Concepts and hypotheses related knowledge concerning the speech- and intellectual development of bilinguals and multilinguals Researchers of bilingualism and multilingualism use various concepts and hypotheses to interpret the development of speech and intellectual functioning in bilinguals. One of these concepts is semilingualism, which is often equated with double-semilingualism and considered to be exclusive to bilinguals. According to Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa (1976), in such

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

35

a state the bilingual is less competent in both languages than a monolingual speaker of either. The term is also present in Cummins’ (1976), threshold hypothesis (see below). He believed that immigrant children might experience attrition of the first language before learning the second. Semilingualism has sparked heated debates: for Martin-Jones & Romaine (1986) it is a “half-baked theory of communicative competence”; MacSwan (2000) found no evidence to support it; and Garcia (2009) thinks that the notion contributes to linguistic stigmatization and is rooted in “the obsession with monolinguals as the norm of reference” (p. 59). Although many scholars today no longer consider the notion a linguistic one, framing it instead as a political concept which is used as a negative label invoking expectations of failure and underachievement, some use it for characterisation of certain groups of bilinguals or multilinguals. From a psychological point of view, it is acceptable that monolinguals can also become semilingual in their only language if the environment does not support their linguistic development. In the same sense, doublesemilingualism is the consequence of a subtractive bilingual situation, in which the conditions required for the development of the first language are lacking, and the second language is acquired by compulsion. In the case of the subtractive multilingual situation, we propose the term multiple semilingualism. The relation between language systems in simultaneous language acquisition, that is, the phenomenon of acquiring two (or more) mother tongues at the same time in early childhood, has intrigued numerous researchers (for example De Houwer, 1995; Deuchar & Quay, 2000; Lanza, 2004; and Navracsics, 1999a). There are two hypotheses regarding this issue: the one system hypothesis and the separated system hypothesis. In the opinion of Volterra & Taeschner (1978), the child works out a single system from the two languages, and up to the age of two uses one common syntactic system with a mixed lexicon. By the age of five, the lexicons of the two languages become separated, and from then on the syntactic systems also separate. Opponents of this hypothesis, who reject the existence of a common system at an early age, state that both language systems develop separately right from the earliest stage. Navracsics (1999b, pp. 11-12) emphasises that on certain linguistic levels the facts support the first hypothesis, yet on others they support the second. De Houwer (2002) voices his opinion that monolingual children, as well as those who acquire two languages simultaneously, essentially go through equivalent stages of development; therefore, we cannot speak of fundamental differences in monolingual and bilingual speech development. This issue is

36

Chapter II

one aspect of the more general problem of bi- and multilingual memory research, which will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. A frequently discussed notion in connection with bilingual or multilingual language competence is the distinction between surface and cognitive linguistic competence and consequently the theory of common underlying proficiency. The distinction between these two aspects of language ability was made by Cummins (1979). He labelled them as BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills) and CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency). The difference is based on observations made both in Europe (Skutnabb-Kangas & Tuokomaa, 1976) and in North America (Cummins, 1981, 1984). It was remarked that immigrant children often appeared to teachers to be fluent in the language of instruction (their second language) but still showed poor performance in verbal tests in both of their languages, for example in Finnish and Swedish in Sweden, or English and some other language in Canada. They were also below age expectations in psychological assessment situations. By introducing the concepts of BICS and CALP, Cummins was able to explain this discrepancy between the different periods needed by immigrant children to acquire conversational fluency in their second language as compared to grade appropriate academic language skills in that language. In psychological terms, surface linguistic competence denotes the acquisition of a language to a level enabling successful communication in everyday situations, especially when supported by nonverbal elements of the situation. This type of competence is characterised by correct pronunciation, basic vocabulary, and the knowledge of basic grammar rules. It occurs in a meaningful social context which is not very demanding cognitively. Cognitive linguistic competence denotes a higher level of fluency, which enables the speaker to think in the language. It is required in context-reduced situations. This type of competence implies the ability to perform intellectual operations using linguistic means and is characterised by comprehension of verbally expressed abstract notions, familiarity with synonyms and an ability to analyse complex linguistic communication. Besides these characteristics, this type of competence also determines successful communication in verbally saturated situations, leading to achievements in the more cognitively demanding forms of school education (Göncz, 2007).

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

37

Surface language competence develops by the age of five in a speaker’s first language and can be reached within two years in the second language as well. By contrast, cognitive linguistic competence follows the growth of intelligence, thus taking at least five years to develop in the second language (Göncz, 2007, 2015). When bilinguals must communicate in a language in which they are only superficially competent, their intellectual functioning remains below their capacities. In Vygotsky’s theory on the relation between language and thought (1962), “internal speech” (which results from internalized egocentric speech), is similar to the concept of cognitive linguistic competence. The BICS/CALP distinction also appears under different terms in developmental and educational psychology (communicative and analytic competence, embedded and disembedded language, utterance and text), but the essential distinction always refers to the extent to which the meaning being communicated is supported by extralinguistic cues (gestures, facial expressions) or is reliant on linguistic cues that are independent of communicative context. The major critiques of the distinction (e.g. Edelsky, 2006; Edelsky et al. 1983; Martin-Jones & Romaine, 1986) have stressed that it attributes the lack of scholastic achievement among bilingual (minority) students to low CALP (which is an artefact of the improper measurement of “testwiseness”) rather than to inappropriate schooling, thereby promoting a “deficit theory”. Despite these comments, the distinction has exerted a significant influence over educational policies on a global scale. There is also evidence of its linguistic reality: Biber (1986) and Corson (1995) found significant lexical differences between conversational interactions in English compared to academic uses of English. Cummins (e.g. 1984, 2000) advanced the BICS/CALP distinction into a larger theory known as CUP (Common Underlying Language Proficiency), parallel with his interdependence hypothesis (see below). CUP focuses on the relationship between language and thought. Cummins believes that in the course of learning one language a child acquires skills, ideas and concepts that can be drawn on when working in another language. CUP provides a basis for the development of both languages. It is an integrated source of thought for bilinguals’ languages and any expansion of this set occurring in one language will have a beneficial effect on the other language(s). This is why it becomes increasingly easier to learn further languages. (For considerable empirical evidence that emerged to support these effects, mostly within the framework of bilingual education, see for

38

Chapter II

example Rossell & Baker, 1996; Cummins & Corson, 1998; and Cummins, 1999). Cummins’ common underlying proficiency model or Dual Iceberg Model (Figure 2.1) can be visualized as two icebergs separate above the water line but fused underneath the surface, meaning that the surface features of two languages (e.g. pronunciation and vocabulary) may be different but the CALP skills (e.g. semantic and functional meaning) are common across languages. The CUP model is also a (hierarchical) model of bilingual memory, a way of thinking about how languages and concepts are stored in the bilingual brain. According to this model, bilingual speakers have separately stored proficiencies in each language and in return each language through working (short term) memory has access to long-term memory which is not language-specific. In other words, the use of the first or second language is informed by the working memory, but the concepts are stored as underlying proficiency; each language is connected to, and interacts with, the conceptual system.

Figure 2.1. Cummins’ Common Underlying Proficiency or Dual Iceberg Model Legend: L1 - first language L2 - second language BICS - Basic Interpersonal Communicative competence CALP - Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency CUP - Common Underlying Proficiency

The first peak above the waterline represents a bilingual’s social language in the first language (BICS in L1) and the second peak represents a bilingual’s social language in the second language (BICS in L2). Beneath

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

39

the waterline is one firm iceberg. One side shows a bilingual’s academic language proficiency in the first language (CALP in L1) and the other side shows academic proficiency in the second language (CALP in L2). In the middle academic proficiency in the first and the second language intersect. The overlapping area is called the Common Underlying Proficiency or CUP (Source: Göncz, 2015, p. 67). Surface and cognitive linguistic competence (together with semilingualism and CUP) play an important role in Cummins’ threshold hypothesis (Cummins, 1976, 1979b, 1980, 1984, 1991a, 2004b, 2004d; SkutnabbKangas, 1984; Šimoniová-ýernáková, 2005), which attempts to explain the possible effects of early bilingualism. According to Cummins, bilingual competence is an intermediary variable between a bilingual situation and the quality of its effects on psychological development and cognitive development in particular. He identified two threshold levels of bilingual competence, the lower and the higher level. As Cummins (1976) wrote, attainment beyond the lower threshold “would be sufficient to avoid retardation, but the attainment of a second, higher level of bilingual competence might be necessary to lead to accelerated cognitive growth” (p. 24). His ideas can be represented graphically as in Figure 3.3, like floors in a house. In other words, Cummins holds that in an additive bilingual situation where the development of both languages is sufficiently motivated and leads to high competence in both, positive effects of bilingualism can be expected. Because a bilingual’s relationship with two cultures and ethnic groups can be as intense as a monolingual’s relationship with only one, certain cognitive potentialities will be realised more fully than in an exclusively monolingual setting. In dominant bilingualism, in which one language is used most frequently and at the native level, bilingualism is not expected to substantially influence intellectual development. In a subtractive situation, in which bilingualism is unwelcome, unfavourable conditions for psychological development and functioning accumulate (thus, cognitive linguistic competence is not achieved in either of the languages) and the effects of the environment that manifest through language diminish. If the lower threshold of bilingual competence can be surpassed, these negative effects disappear; upon reaching the upper threshold, the bilingual experience begins to stimulate intellectual development.

40

Chapter II

Figure 2.2. The Threshold Hypothesis Legend: H = high, P = partial, and L = low (Source: Göncz, 2015:70)

The threshold hypothesis is a theoretical description and, as such, has several limitations. It has been criticised for various reasons. For example, MacSwan (2000) thinks that it “should be abandoned on empirical, theoretical, and moral grounds” (p. 3). Takakuwa (2005) also claims, that since “the threshold levels are relative, the threshold hypothesis is either meaningless or trivially true…It is even possible that the lower threshold level found in a study is higher, in the absolute sense, than the higher threshold level found in another” (p. 2223). On the other hand, many researchers assert that the hypothesis is supported by research (e.g. Cummins, 2000; Genc [Göncz] 1981; Ricciardelli, 1993). Despite its limitations, the hypothesis has stimulated support for developing bilingualism. It remains a useful tool in explaining the development of bilingual learners and suggests that both languages must be allowed to develop if there is to be a long-term positive impact. The hypothesis of the interdependence of language proficiency in bilinguals analyses the relationship between the development of the first

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

41

and the second language in bilingual children (Cummins, 1979a, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1987, 1991b, 2004a, 2004b; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1984; Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa, 1976, 1977; Šimoniová-ýernáková, 2005). Cummins defined the interdependence hypothesis (also known as the developmental interdependence hypothesis) in 1981 as follows: To the extent that instruction in Lx is effective in promoting proficiency to Lx, transfer of this proficiency to Ly will occur provided there is adequate exposure to Ly (either in school or environment) and adequate motivation to learn Ly. (p. 29)

Several aspects of this hypothesis had been mentioned earlier (e.g. Cummins, 1976; 1979a, 1981; Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa, 1976), but it was later built into the CUP model as the interdependence principle, which is one of the basic beliefs among advocates of bilingual education (Cummins, 1998). It is also strongly connected with Cummins’ threshold hypothesis (Cummins, 1979b) and the notion of semilingualism. In Garcia’s (2009) view Cummins’ theoretical constructs “combine psycholinguistic perspectives with social perspectives [and] enable us to see the effects of the social context on bilingualism” (p. 71). The interdependence hypothesis is one such construct. The hypothesis of language proficiency interdependence in bilinguals examines the development of first and second languages when learned successively. According to this hypothesis, the linguistic competence attainable in the second language is a function of the competence already achieved in the first. If first-language competence is already low as a result of insufficient developmental stimulation and then the intensive study of a second language is introduced, the second language will hinder further development of the first, thereby also limiting the development of the second. If first-language competence is already high, and the conditions for further development of the first-language exist, intensive study of a second language is the most effective way to acquire functional bilingualism without impairment in linguistic development. In other words, a cognitively and academically beneficial form of bilingualism can be achieved only based on adequately developed first language (L1) skills. Presumably, this holds also for multilingual development. Empirical research data on the effectiveness of different forms of bilingual education (Rossell & Baker, 1996; Cummins & Corson, 1998; Thomas & Collier, 2002) and on research studies that documented the transfer of cognitive/academic or literacy-related skills across languages (Jiang & Kuehn, 2001; Yamashita, 2002) support this hypothesis. However, more research is needed to specify the type, amount and direction of transfer

42

Chapter II

across closely related or more distant languages at different stages of development. In Chapter 4 of the book some more, mostly newer knowledge, related to the above concepts and hypotheses concerning the speech- and cognitive development of bi- and multilingual persons, will be presented in more detail.

2.2.3. Concepts related to social psychological relations of bilingualism and multilingualism Diglossia is a term that researchers concerned with the psychology of bilingualism borrowed from sociolinguistics; it helps, in certain cases, to give a satisfactory description of the language use of various bilingual speech communities. It can also be extended to multilingual speech communities. In the interpretation of Ferguson (1959), it is a technical term that describes the language situation where two variants of the same language are present throughout the whole community, and each variant has a different function. The higher (H) variant is connected to formal speech situations, the low (L) variant to informal ones, and the two variants are definable both linguistically and functionally. Some have extended the term to social bilingualism (the co-existence of the standard language and the traditional dialects) and also to two-codedness (the existence of a standard and any non-standard forms). In Fishman’s interpretation (Fishman, 1967, 1980) this term can also be applied to situations where the two variants belong to two different languages. Others term all bilingual situations diglossia, identifying, for example, in a minority language situation, the H variant with the majority language and the L variant with the minority language. Diglossia interpreted in this way has little in common with Ferguson’s diglossia. Knowledge about functions of speech and language are also frequently used in the psychology of bilingualism and multilingualism, focusing attention on the fact that both Piaget (1964) and Vygotsky (1962) attribute two functions to speech (one which serves social or communicative needs, the other one which accompanies, aids and directs cognition). They do, however, have divergent opinions on how important these functions are and what their role in the different stages of development is. In the opinion of Piaget, the social function is not the primary one, since it is egocentric speech, which does not serve communication, that dominates at the beginning. (Egocentric speech is one of the characteristics of the egocentric stage of development in which children cannot understand the

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

43

experiences, feelings, and thoughts of others and it means that the child is talking aloud to himself or herself.) The egocentric speech disappears later (it is an involitive phenomenon), and around the age of seven, its place is taken over by the social function, by talking to others. Only when the stage of formal operations is reached does speech become the instrument of thinking. In contrast, according to Vygotsky, from the age of two speech carries both social and private functions, yet the child is not able to differentiate between them; hence, egocentric speech develops. Later on, this turns into internal speech (it is an evolutional phenomenon) and assumes a cognitive function (the formulation of problems and hypotheses, the planning of various actions, solutions to problems). Then, after the age of seven, speaking aloud becomes limited to communicational situations only. At the same time language can have the function of communication within the group, between groups and also the function of specific information transference (acquisition of a higher level of education). In a heterogeneous environment, languages are used in three communicational spheres: intimate-everyday, public-professional and publicistic-literary. For example, concerning the functions of languages of indigenous ethnic communities in Central-Eastern Europe, at least those of the largest groups, they are actively used on the lowest, intimate-everyday level and the highest (publicistic-literary) level, while on the public-professional level they are only partially or scarcely employed. This function of the language has become impoverished since in administration, professional life, cultural life, commerce, health services, and partly in public education it has been replaced by the language of the state. Language repression is an indication of losing ground: a decreasing number of speakers use a language in fewer and fewer speech situations. Language expansion, on the other hand, means gaining ground: more and more people speak a language in wider and wider spheres of life. The position of languages is determined by extra-lingual factors, and their change brings about a change in the position of languages as well. More detailed information regarding these concepts will be displayed in the fifth chapter of the book.

44

Chapter II

2.2.4. Concepts related to the pedagogical questions of bilingualism and multilingualism Concerning the pedagogical implications of multilingualism, a question often raised is that of the optimal age to start with the institutional teaching of a second language or additional languages. A neuropsychological hypothesis puts this age between four and eight (see Note 2). To decide upon the right time, one ought to consider several factors that will later influence the development of both (or more) languages. Things to consider from the learners’ aspect include the following: Is the bilingual or multilingual situation subtractive or additive? Is there a possibility for language change? Which language dominates in the environment and will, therefore, develop successfully without being institutionally aided? How intensive is the study? How much time is provided? And what is the aim of second (or additional) language learning? An example: a bilingual situation is subtractive from the standpoint of a minority learner, so the majority language has a high status and the minority language a low status. Therefore, we have a situation that holds the probability of language change; yet, we have set the dominance in the first language as our goal. In this case, it is advisable to postpone the start of the institutional teaching of the second (majority) language. If, on the other hand, our goal is to achieve bilingual status for the children speaking the majority language, or if we wish to achieve elite bilingualism, it seems advisable to start with the learning of a second or foreign language at an early or earlier age. The concept of bilingual (or multilingual) education has diverse meanings. In addition to the classic definition—according to which bilingual (multilingual) education requires from the educational system the use of two (or more) languages as media of instruction in subjects other than the languages themselves—in the United States, the term mostly refers to transitional bilingual programmes, which provide some early nativelanguage instruction to non-English speaking students in grounding their transfer to mainstream classes given in English. In this book two concepts are used: the concept of bilingual (or multilingual) education and the concept of bilingual (multilingual) instruction. Bilingual (multilingual) education has a wider meaning and includes all those forms of education that wish to achieve, as one of their primary goals, the promotion of bilingual (multilingual) students, regardless of the number of languages that are used as media of instruction. Bilingual (multilingual) instruction refers to such instructional methods where two (or more) languages appear as media of instruction, but the aim is not necessarily the promotion of

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

45

bilingualism or multilingualism: for instance in the education of indigenous ethnic students, monolingual education in the mother tongue and teaching the dominant language as a subject is one of the best ways to reach higher levels of bilingualism than instruction in two languages. More detailed information regarding these concepts will be discussed in the sixth chapter of the book.

Chapter summary Chapter 2 contains the basic concepts of the psychology of multilingualism and scientific knowledge related to these concepts. They are derived from the psychology of language, from the sciences of bilingualism and multilingualism, and from other sources (mostly developmental and educational psychology, cognitive neurosciences, and sociolinguistics). The psychology of multilingualism took influence from psychology of language definitions and basic knowledge concerning speech, language, psychophysiology of speech, language acquisition, theories of language development, and views about the relationship between language or speech and thought. The sciences of bilingualism and multilingualism have enriched the psychology of multilingualism with the definitions and knowledge related to the mother tongue, to bilingualism/multilingualism, and the types of bilingualism/multilingualism. Definitions and related knowledge on notions of minority/majority, linguicism, assimilation/integration; on concepts related to the speech- and intellectual development of bilinguals and multilinguals like semilingualism, the relation between language systems in simultaneous language acquisition, surface and cognitive language competence, Cummins’ threshold hypothesis, or the hypothesis of the interdependence of language proficiency; on concepts related to social psychological connections of bilingualism and multilingualism, like diglossia or functions of speech and language; and on concepts related to such pedagogical questions as the optimal age to start with the institutional teaching of a second language, were taken mostly from developmental and educational psychology, cognitive neurosciences, and sociolinguistics.

Notes 1 In

developmental psychology, a sensitive (critical) period refers to a maturational stage in the lifespan of an organism during which the nervous system is especially sensitive to certain environmental stimuli. If the organism does not receive the appropriate stimulus during this “critical period” to learn a given skill or trait, it

46

Chapter II

may be difficult, ultimately less successful, or even impossible, to develop some functions later in life. Functions that are indispensable to an organism's survival, such as vision, are particularly likely to develop during critical periods. The “critical period” also relates to the ability to acquire one's first language. Researchers found that people who passed the period would not acquire their first language fluently. The definition of the critical period was determined by deprivation experiments. Deprivation or isolation experiments are used to determine the role of hereditary and environmental factors in the process of development. To investigate this problem, a variant of experiment with parallel groups is used: the so-called isolation or deprivation experiments. In these experiments, the experimental group is prevented from gaining experience. If it does not show the traits, skills or behaviours that are present in the control group living under normal/usual conditions, these traits are deemed to be under the influence of learning. Experience is not necessary for features that still appear. For simpler traits, there are more or less certain criteria regarding the issue of which factor is primarily responsible for their realisation: early appearance, universality, and the development of a characteristic through the same developmental stages in all normal members of a species. If some feature appears immediately after birth, it is probably inherited. That cannot be claimed, however, with complete certainty, since learning is also possible in the prenatal period by classical conditioning. Universality refers to the occurrence of traits among all members of a species, which is also a sign that a given trait could be inherited, although the same or similar living conditions may have led to its appearance. This can especially be the case in the realisation of those simple traits which do not require specific training. Namely, every individual comes into such situations where they seamlessly practice them, as, for example, with the ability to distinguish between warm and cold, or rough and smooth. Also, if a characteristic is realised through the same developmental stages in all members of a species, i.e. the lawfulness of the constancy of the developmental order is present, it is highly probable that the influence of internal factors is greater. These experiments were performed by ethologists (ethology studies the behaviour of animals under natural conditions) and developmental psychologists. The first well-known experiment was Leonard Carmichael’s (1898-1973) attempt to find the answer to the question of whether or not newts’ ability to swim is caused by maturation or learning. Immediately after their birth, two groups of newts were formed. The members of the control group were placed in common water (this is their natural environment), and the members of the experimental group into chloroethane. This chemical solution is paralyzing and prevents movement, but does not affect the maturation process. When the aquatic animals started to swim, the members of the experimental group were removed from the chloroethane and put into water. After about 20 minutes, they started to swim. To check why they needed the twenty minutes (does it take 20 minutes to learn to swim, or to get rid of the paralyzing effect of the solution?), the members of the control group (who were already able to swim) were put for some time into the chloroethane, and then back into the water. Since they needed 20 minutes to swim

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

47

again (as the time was necessary to get rid of the inhibitory effect of the solution), it was deduced that swimming for this type of lizard is the result of maturation, and for their appearance exercise (learning) is not necessary. This and other similar experiments led to the concept of the critical (sensitive) period, which has important pedagogical implications. A period in development is called a critical period when a function, even though it is strongly hereditary, needs to be practised because otherwise it will not be embedded into behaviour, and would consequently become degenerate. It represents a kind of susceptibility to learning, in that, as long as the critical period lasts, practice is very effective. However, it is very important to know when to practice: before the start of the period, the effect of the exercise is modest, but after the end of the period irreparable damage will occur. The critical period starts with physiological maturity; ergo, a function should begin to be practised when the organism has reached the maturity to practice it. There are distinct sensitive periods for every function. For simpler functions, the period lasts for a shorter time, for more complex behaviours it endures for much longer. For example, the critical period for the acquisition of speech lasts from 1.5 to 8 years of age. If a child is not exposed to any human language within these age limits, he or she will never be able to learn to speak properly. The cases of so-called “wild” children or feral children, who have grown up under subhuman conditions (mostly between animals) are good examples of this. Many animal experiments have proved that even in highly inherited properties practice is needed. This is the case, for example, in the case of buzzards, for whom the flight is the result of maturation. If the birds are closed in a cage where they do not have the opportunity to practise flying, and this possibility is given to them only after the critical period, they cannot fly (or can just barely), as there is no need for learning to fly. That postponed practice may even result in the loss of an inherited property has been proved by Douglas Spalding’s (1841-1877) experiments on young chickens. He was examining whether the reaction of chicks just hatched from an egg to the call of their mother was an inherited or learned behaviour. When the chicks hatched from the egg, they were taken away from their mother for 24 hours. When they came back to their mother, they immediately responded to her call, proving that it is an inherited behaviour, as they did not have the opportunity to learn it. However, if the isolation lasted for 10 days, this behaviour did not occur but vanished. This also proves that even inherited properties should be practised within the appropriate timescale, otherwise they will disappear. Numerous experiments with children have also led to instructive results. For example, Myrtle McGraw (1899-1988) investigated how much of an influence training had on walking (and similar movements), and to what extent it was determined by maturity. Her observations were carried out on 18-month-old boys, identical twins, who had identical genes and were maturing at very similar rates. With one of the boys sitting, climbing and walking were practised (these are

48

Chapter II

phylogenetic functions because they are characteristic for all normally developing children), as was climbing up and down the stairs (which is an ontogenetic, individual feature). The other boy was not prevented from moving, but he did not engage in special exercises. Practising led to some advantage, but only for the ontogenetic function. In the case of sitting, climbing and walking, practice hardly accelerated the development, and the untrained boy caught up quickly. This means that practice is required for the development of phylogenetic functions, but does not significantly speed up their development. At the same time, it has a much greater role in the development of ontogenetic functions. In a related study, Arnold Gesell’s (1880-1961) experiment demonstrated that training too early is not sufficiently effective. He observed 48-week-old girls, identical twins. One of the little girls practised the phylogenetic and ontogenetic functions mentioned above for 6 weeks, while the other one started exercising at the end of this timeframe (i.e. she was 6 weeks older). The little girl who started her practice later reached the same level of development in these functions observed by the first child in only two weeks. Exercising too early is, therefore, less effective (although it does not cause harm as in the case when there is no opportunity for training during the critical period), and its negative effect is primarily that the child loses self-confidence, so that later, when maturity for practice of the function is reached, he or she does not want to do it, because they are afraid of failure. The experiments thus demonstrate that exercise is to be performed at the optimal time, when the child is mature enough for it—that is, in the critical period. Exercising too early is ineffective and reduces motivation while delaying leads to damage. We do not have exact indicators when the critical period begins for a function to be trained. An uncertain criterion is the child's interest in performing a function. If the child is interested in doing a particular activity (but not because they imitate those older than them), the conditions should be created to exercise this function. The issue of school readiness (but also the age at which the teaching of a subject, or a foreign language, is to be introduced) is closely related to the concept of the critical period. The child must be enrolled in school when he or she is ready to acquire literacy, must be able to master basic arithmetic operations, and must be emotionally and socially mature enough to meet the school's requirements. 2

Some think that it is this plasticity that should be made use of, and that institutionalized second language teaching should start between ages four and eight. This is the age when the child is “responsive” to language learning, which can be related to the process of neurophysiological maturation of the cortex.

3

The phenomenon of nominal realism, as a characteristic feature of thinking at pre-school age, was first studied by Piaget (1964). The thinking of children at preschool age—once the first stage of sensorimotor-thinking is over, and the preoperational stage starts—is characterised by two kinds of egocentrism. Logical egocentrism indicates that there is no change of perspectives, and existential egocentrism is the mixing of psychological and physical realities, and it determines

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

49

the child's interpretation of the world. The child at pre-school age is unable to differentiate between phenomena that exist only in his or her mind and phenomena that are not related to him/her. Its manifestations are a form of realism that finds expression in the objectification of subjective things (“his-her dream happens right next to his-her bed, and others can also see it”), and nominal realism, also. Piaget observed that at the age of five or six, children refuse to accept that the words naming an objects can be changed, and they believe that a word represents an invisible characteristic feature of the object it denotes. Children believe that if we change the word since it is a significant attribute of the object, the object itself will also change. At the age of seven to eight (the beginning of the operational stage) the link between the word and the object it denotes begins to loosen up, but they can still not fully grasp the conventional character of the word. They think that the first man or God gave the names to the objects. At age 9-10, they become partially free from nominal realism and at 11-12 completely so; in other words, they interpret the names of objects as signs and understand their conventional character. Several studies have proved that early bilingual experience speeds up the fading of nominal realism since a child growing up under the influence of the two languages hears and uses two words for the same object already, and he or she is thus aware of the object remaining the same. Nominal realism is presently studied within the development of metalinguistic awareness as a part of word awareness. (Göncz, 2003, 2015; Genc [Göncz] & Kodžopeljiü, 2005). 4 Audio-lingual and audio-visual methods in foreign language teaching are based upon similar mechanisms: the learner repeats utterances imitating real communicational situations spoken in the target language—preferably by a teacher who speaks the language at the level of a native speaker—until they become automatized. In the meantime, they are praised, and this praise is reinforced in the sphere of experiences in the form of positive inner conditioning by the feeling of satisfaction. According to the principles of the psychology of learning, behaviour followed by positive consequences is reinforced and turns into a habit. This, at the same time, is proof of the fact that psychological knowledge related to speech has a constant influence on ideas concerned with language teaching or language learning. 5

Some authors (see Kontra, 1999) emphasise that in the second half of the twentieth century—and this is the time when bilingualism became a subject of intensive studies in linguistics—opinion “came to a marked difference between two linguistic tendencies: theoretical linguistics and secular—or sociolinguistics”. The latter studies language in its social embeddedness by using data from real linguistic behaviour. Consequently, it comes into contact with the social problems of the communities where the research is being conducted, with the problems of language minorities within such communities, and thus, amongst other things, with the problems of bilingualism. Sociolinguistics is one of the linguistic disciplines that studies this problem as its key topic, and many of the researchers of bilingualism who have linguistic training are adherents of the sociolinguistic

50

Chapter II

approach. The psychology of bilingualism is indebted to the sociolinguistics of bilingualism and continues to employ much information from the field. 6

This situation can be related to certain interpretations of the concept of diglossia (Ferguson, 1959). As Lanstyák (1993) stated, in Fishman's (1980) explanation the term diglossia can also be used for linguistic situations in which the High and Low language variants can belong to two different languages: the High code to the majority language, the Low code to the minority one. Diglossia, so interpreted, has little to do with “original” diglossia as defined by Ferguson. Looking at the relationship between minority and majority languages in heterogeneous regions through a ‘diglossic’ lens has important implications for language planning in them, and accepting such a state does not support linguistic and cultural diversity. 7

According to Joona (2012), indigenous minorities are “disadvantaged descendants of those that inhibited a territory before colonization or the formation of the existing state”. Sarivaara, Määttä & Uusiautti (2019), concerning the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, state that the world’s total indigenous people varies from 200 to 370 million.

References Antoniou, M., & Wright, S. M. (2017). Uncovering the Mechanisms Responsible for Why Language Learning May Promote Healthy Cognitive Aging. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2217. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02217 Athanasopoulos, P., Dering, B., Wiggett, A., Kuipers, J. R., & Thierry, G. (2010). Perceptual shift in bilingualism: Brain potentials reveal plasticity in pre-attentive colour perception. Cognition, 116, 3, 437443. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.016 Bartha, Cs. (1999). A kétnyelvĦség alapkérdései. BeszélĘk és közösségek [Basic questions in bilingualism. Speakers and communities]. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó. Bernstein, B. (1972). Social class, language and socialization. In Giglioli, P. P. (Ed.). Language and Social Context: Selected Readings (157178). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. Bernstein, B. (1974a). Codes, Class and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bernstein, B. (1974b). Sociology and the sociology of education: a brief account. In Rex, J. (Ed.). Approaches to sociology (pp. 144-59). London: Routledge. Bernáth, L., & Révész, Gy. (Eds.) (1994). A pszichológia alapjai [Basics of psychology]. Budapest: Tertia Kiadó.

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

51

Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. Psychological bulletin, 143, 3, 233-262. doi.org/10.1037/bul0000099 Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., Green, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological science in the public interest, 10, 3, 89-129. Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16, 4, 240-250. doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001 Biber, D. (1986) Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language, 62, 384-414. Bishop, D. V., & Bishop, S. J. (1998). "Twin Language" A Risk Factor for Language Impairment? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1, 150-160. Corson, D. (1995). Using English Words. New York: Kluwer. Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and explanatory hypothesis. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 1-43. Cummins, J. (1979a). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimal age question and some other matters, Working Papers on Bilingualism, 197-2005. Cummins, J. (1979b). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 2, 221-251. Cummins, J. (1980). Psychological assessment of immigrant children. Logic or intuition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1-2, 97-111. Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. Schooling and language minority students: a theoretical framework. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Centre, California State University. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (1987). Empowering minority students. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Cummins, J. (1991a). Language learning and bilingualism. Sophia Linguistica. Working Papers in Linguistics 29. Tokyo: Sophia University. Cummins, J. (1991b). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. Bialystok, E. (Ed.). Language

52

Chapter II

processing in bilingual children (pp. 70-88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1998). Immersion education for the millennium: What have we learned from 30 years of research on second language immersion? In Childs, M. R., & Bostwick, R. M. (Eds.). Learning through two languages: Research and practice. Second Katoh Gakuen International Symposium on Immersion and Bilingual Education. (pp. 34-47). Numazu, Japan: Katoh Gakuen. Cummins, J. (1999). Beyond adversarial discourse: Searching for common ground in the education of bilingual students. In Ovando, C. J., & McLaren, P. (Eds.). The politics of multiculturalism and bilingual education: Students and teachers caught in the cross-fire. (pp. 126147). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2004a). Bilingual children’s mother tongue: why is it important for education? Jim Cummins Bilingual Education Web. http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/. Cummins, J. (2004b). Cognitive theories of bilingual education. Jim Cummins Bilingual Education Web. http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/. Cummins, J., & Corson, D. (Eds.) (1998). Bilingual Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Daneš, F. (1991). On linguistic strata (levels). Theoretical Linguistics, 17, 1-3, 23-42. De Houwer, A. (1995). The acquisition of two languages from birth: a case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Houwer, A. (2002). Comparing monolingual and bilingual acquisition. Alkalmazott Nyelvtudomány – Applied Lingustics, 1, 5-8. Deuchar, M., & Quay, S. (2000). Bilingual acquisition: theoretical implications of a case study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edelsky, C. (2006). With literacy and justice for all: Rethinking the social in language and education. Routledge. Edelsky, C., Hudelson, S., Flores, B., Barkin, F., Altwerger, B., & Jilbert, K. (1983). Semilingualism and language deficit. Applied Linguistics, 4, 1, 1-22. Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 3, 25-340. Fishman, J. A. (1967). Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23, 2, 29-38.

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

53

Fishman, J. A. (1980). Bilingualism and biculturalism as individual and as societal phenomena, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1, 1, 3-15. Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: a global perspective. Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell. Genc [Göncz], L. (1981). Rana dvojeziþnost i kognitivni razvoj [Early bilingualism and cognitive development]. Dr. Sc. thesis, Belgrade: University of Belgrade, Department of Psychology. Genc [Göncz], L., & Kodžopeljiü, J. (2005). Istraživanja razvoja govora: metajeziþki i dvojeziþni razvoj [Investigations of language development: metalinguistic and bilingual development]. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Serbian Psychologists 2005. Knjiga rezimea [Abstracts], p. 48. Göncz, L. (1999). A magyar nyelv Jugoszláviában (Vajdaságban) [The Hungarian language in Yugoslavia (Vojvodina)]. Budapest-Újvidék: Osiris-Forum-MTA Kisebbségkutató MĦhely. Göncz, Lajos. (2003). A metanyelvi képességek fejlĘdése egynyelvĦ és kétnyelvĦ gyerekeknél [Development of metalinguistic abilities in monolingual and bilingual children]. Alkalmazott NyelvtudományApplied Linguistics, 2, 5-20. Göncz, L. (2004). A vajdasági magyarság kétnyelvĦsége: nyelvpszichológiai vonatkozások [The bilingualism of Hungarians in Vojvodina: aspects of the psychology of language]. Szabadka: MTT Könyvtár 8. Göncz L. (2015). Bilingualism and development: a psychological approach. Godišnjak Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, 40, 1, 49-78. Göncz, L. (2018). Generalised ethnocentrism among high-school students in a multicultural setting: the role of the degree of multilingualism, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39, 3, 224239. doi: 10.1080/01434632.2017.1355371 Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Howard, D. (1997). Language in the human brain. Cognitive neuroscience, 277-304. Iviü, I. (1978). ýovek kao animal symbolicum. Razvoj simboliþkih sposobnosti [Man as animal symbolicum. The development of symbolic functions]. Beograd: Nolit. Jiang, B., & Kuehn, P. (2001). Transfer in the academic language development of post-secondary ESL students. Bilingual Research Journal, 25, 417- 436.

54

Chapter II

Joona, T. (2012). ILO Convention No. 169 in a Nordic context with comparative analysis: an interdisciplinary approach. fi= Lapin yliopistokustannus| en= Lapland University Press|. Kiss, J. (1994). Magyar anyanyelvĦek – magyar nyelvhasználat [Hungarian as mother tongue – Hungarian as language use]. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó. Kontra, M. (1999). KözérdekĦ nyelvészet [Linguistics in public]. Budapest: Osiris. Kovács, Á. M., & Mehler, J. (2009). Cognitive gains in 7-month-old bilingual infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 16, 6556-6560. Lanstyák, I. (1991). Töprengések a szlovákiai magyarok kétnyelvĦségérĘl [Reflections on the bilingualism of Hungarians in Slovakia]. In GyĘryNagy, S., & Kelemen, J. (Eds.). KétnyelvĦség a Kárpát-medencébem I (pp. 20-29). Budapest: Pszicholingva NyelviskolaņSzéchenyi Társaság. Lanstyák, I. (1993). Diglosszia és kettĘsnyelvĦség [Diglossia and bidialectism], KétnyelvĦség [Bilingualism], 1, 1, 5-21. Lanstyák, I. (1995). KétnyelvĦ egyén–kétnyelvĦ közösség–kétnyelvĦ iskola [Bilingual individual–bilingual community–bilingual school]. In Lanstyák I. & Szigeti L. (Eds.). Identitásunk alapja az anyanyelvĦ oktatás. Érveink az alternatív – kétnyelvĦ oktatással szemben [The basis of identity is the instruction in mother tongue. Arguments against the alternative – bilingual education] (pp. 7-20). Pozsony: Mécs László Alapítvány Kiskönyvtára. Lanza, E. (2004). Language Mixing in Infant Bilingualism: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lesser, R. (1978). Linguistic investigations of aphasia. London: Edward Arnold. Little, W., McGivern, R., & Kerins, N. (2016). Introduction to Sociology2nd Canadian Edition. BC Campus. Luria, A. R., & Yudovich, F. I. (1972). Speech and the Development of Mental Processes in the Child. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books. Martin-Jones, M., & Romaine, S. (1986). Semilingualism: A half-baked theory of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics, 7, 1, 26-38. MacSwan, J. (2000). The threshold hypothesis, semilingualism, and other contributions to a deficit view of linguistic minorities. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 1, 3-45. Navracsics, J. (1999a). A kétnyelvĦ gyermek [The bilingual child]. Budapest: Corvina.

The concepts of the psychology of multilingualism

55

Navracsics, J. (1999b). The acquisition of Hungarian by trilinguals. PhD. Dissertation. Pécs: Janus Pannonius University. Nordquist, R. (2019, July 3). Generative Grammar: Definition and Examples. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-generative-grammar-1690894 Piaget, J. (1964). Le language et la pensée du point de vue génétique [Language and thought from a genetic viewpont]. In Piaget, J. (Ed.) Six études de psychologie [Six studies in psychology] (pp. 100-113). Genève: Editions Gonthier. Ricciardelli, L. A. (1993). An investigation of the cognitive development of Italian-English bilinguals and Italian monolinguals from Rome. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 14, 345-346. Rossell, C. H., & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 7-74. Saltzman, M., & Ersner M. S. (1951). Psychophysiology of speech hearing. AMA archives of otolaryngology, 53, 2, 182-188. Sapir, E. (1990). The collected works of Edward Sapir (Vol. 8). Mouton de Gruyter. Sarivaara, E. K., Määttä, K., & Uusiautti, S. (2019). Indigenous Adult Language Revitalization and Education. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1984). Bilingualism or Not—The Education of Minorities, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters 7. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1990). Language, literacy and minorities. London: Minority Rights Group Report. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Toukomaa, P. (Eds.). (1976). Teaching migrant children’s mother tongue and learning the language of the host country in the context of the sociocultural situation of the migrant family. Helsinki: Finnish Commission for UNESCO. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Toukomaa, P. (1977). The influence of teaching of the mother tongue to migrant children of preschool age in the lower level of comprehensive school. Helsinki: The Finnish National Commission of UNESCO. Šimoniová-ýernáková, R. (2005). Neke determinante školskog uspeha kod uþenika pripadnika jeziþkih manjina u Vojvodini nakon promene nastavnog jezika [Some determinants of school success in language minority students in Vojvodina after changing the language of instruction]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet. Takakuwa, M. (2005). Lessons from a paradoxical hypothesis: A methodological critique of the threshold hypothesis. In Cohen, J., Mc Alister, K. T., Rolstad, K., & MacSwan, J. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 4th

56

Chapter II

International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 2222-2232). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic school achievement (Final Paper No. 1.1). Santa Cruz, CA: University of California. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Vygotsky, R. L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality. Cambridge: Technology Press-New York: Wiley. Windholz, G. (1990). The second signal system as conceived by Pavlov and his disciples. The Pavlovian journal of biological science, 25, 4, 163-173. Zazzo, R. (1978). Genesis and peculiarities of the personality of twins. Progress in clinical and biological research, 24, 1-11. Yamashita, J. (2002). Mutual compensation between L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency in L2 reading comprehension. Journal of Research of Reading, 25, 81-95.

CHAPTER III TYPES OF BILINGUALISM: PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF BALANCEDOMINANT AND COORDINATE-COMPOUND BILINGUALISM*

From among the various types of bilingualism, the balance-dominant and coordinate-compound dichotomy has aroused the greatest interest within the psychology of bilingualism. Before describing this area of research in detail, we shall give a summary of the results of the research into associations and meaning conducted in experimental psychology and psycholinguistics, to which studies of the above dichotomies are closely related.

3.1. Research into associations and meaning in experimental psychology and psycholinguistics1 Research into associations conducted in experimental psychology gives us a sound background for studying balance-dominant bilingualism. It is a well-known fact that the notion of associations was introduced into classical Greek philosophy by Aristotle (384—322 BC), nevertheless, even today, they are considered to be the basic mechanism of all forms of learning. The essence of associations is that images of events, frequently experienced jointly in space or time, or similar or opposing events produce such connections that make it later possible for one event to recall the *

In writing this chapter, the author used two of his articles in particular: 1) Egy új kétnyelvĦségi tipológia felállításának kísérlete [An attempt to construct a new theory of bilingualism]. Hungarológiai Közlemények,1984, 16, 1, 729—755, and 2) A kétnyelvĦség pszichológiája [The psychology of bilingualism], In A vajdasági magyarság kétnyelvĦsége: nyelvpszichológiai vonatkozások [The bilingualism of Hungarians in Vojvodina: aspects of the psychology of language] (2004, pp. 1661). Szabadka: MTT Könyvtár 8.

58

Chapter III

other, jointly experienced event. In present-day psychology this concept is interpreted in a wider sense: this connection is formed not only between the images but also between stimuli (situations) and reactions (forms of behaviour). Psychology has been most interested in free and continuous associations. When studying free associations the participant has to utter the first word that comes into their mind. The subject of analysis is both the quality of their answers and their reaction time. It is possible to determine the primary associations—that is, the most frequent associations to a given stimulus—and the answers can be also categorised or classified, which renders possible the determination of individual or group characteristics. The task with continuous associations is to give all possible associations that come to the mind within a certain interval of time. When studying balance-dominant bilinguals, examinations of both freeand continuous associations have been applied. Thus, for example, from the number of continuous associations given to the same words in both languages (words of equivalent meaning and frequency), we could relatively accurately estimate the stage of development of both languages; in other words, it is possible to determine whether in the case of an individual or a group there are significant differences between the languages in the level of competence, i.e., whether they have attained a balanced or a dominant form of bilingualism. Balanced bilinguals give approximately the same number of continuous associations in both languages. This method, therefore, suitably determines the stage of development of the language systems with the use of one single global index, setting aside the rather complicated business of charting separately productive (speech production and writing) and receptive (speech perception and reading) language skills. It is also possible to determine the level of bilingualism indirectly, through questionnaires: the language that the speaker uses more, whose impacts are consequently more frequent, is also, probably, the more developed language of a bilingual person.2 Studies have also proved that the degree of bilingualism, that is, the difference between the knowledge of the two language systems—in the sense of whether the informant's knowledge of the languages is equally good or equally poor (which is of a high level in balanced bilinguals and lower in dominant bilinguals)—shows a correlation with the frequency of certain word classes in the first language of the bilingual person. Namely, in free association tests, dominant bilinguals answer to words of stimuli predominantly with adjectives, which points to a more subtle knowledge of their first language, while balanced bilinguals as a consequence of the stronger interference between the language systems, use verbs more

Types of bilingualism

59

frequently. Experiments in the psychology of language have shown that more frequent use of verbs may point to a greater emotional tension.3 Studies aimed at differentiating between coordinate-compound bilingualism are close to investigations into meaning conducted in experimental psychology and experimental psycholinguistics. To fully understand the results of the studies concerning this dichotomy, it is important to know that in psychology meaning refers to the relations that exist between the sign, the object or phenomenon denoted by it, and the experience generated in the person. In speech, it is the words or rather the morphemes that carry meaning and their meanings are multi-dimensional. There exists a denotative (extensional) meaning that refers to the objective, generally accepted content of the word (mother: the woman who has a child), and connotative (emotional, affective, intentional) meaning that reflects the person's emotional relationship to the given word or object that it denotes. Connotative meaning is measured by the semantic differential,4 a series of seven-unit graphic scales which are delineated by adjectives of opposite meanings (for example pretty-ugly, pleasant-unpleasant, strong-weak). The stimuli-words are to be localised on these scales. By using the semantic differential, we can determine the strength and the quality of meaning. Tests have proved that in co-ordinated bilingual speakers the connotative meanings of the same words in the two languages are more different than in compound bilinguals. Starting from the typology of Weinreich (1953, 1974) according to Ervin & Osgood (1954) a bilingual person can theoretically develop two, essentially different types or forms of bilingualism: coordinate bilingualism and compound (or complex) bilingualism. If one of the languages is always associated to the same persons or situations, and the other language to different ones, coordinate bilingualism will develop, the languages will not mix, and the interference between languages will be at a low stage. In contrast, if there is no separation between the sources of language learning, the language systems will mix and the compound type of bilingualism develops. We have such a situation if, for example, the same person speaks about the same things alternately with a child once in one language and again in another language, or if the meaning of the words in one language is explained with another language. Of course, these two types of bilingualism are on the extremes of a continuum, and the coordinateness will develop to a different degree in different areas of the language.

Chapter III

60

As already mentioned, this theory devotes the greatest attention to semantic problems and is well connected to the theories of meaning in psycholinguistics. These theories define the meaning of words operationally as the reactions to the stimulus words. There is no consensus on the nature of the reactions. They can be associated words (Bousfield et al., 1944, and Bousfield et al., 1960 as cited by Fulgosi, Baþun & Žaja, 1971), or emotional and visceral reactions (Osgood, 1962, as cited by Fulgosi, Baþun & Žaja, 1971). However, they all agree that the representational mediational processes, as the equivalents for the concept of meaning, are the result of conditioning. During the process of conditioning, the link to the word is established. The representational mediational processes, as the carriers of meaning, are different in coordinate and compound bilingualism. In coordinate bilingualism, the language signs and answers in one language are linked to a certain representational mediational process (rm1. . .Sm1), and the signs and answers from the other language to a partly different representational mediational processes (rm2. . .Sm2), which leads to the somewhat different meaning of the equivalent words in the two languages. In contrast, in compound bilingualism, the meaning of the same words in the languages are determined by the same processes, and consequently, they overlap in their meaning. Schematically this can be represented in the following way: Coordinate bilingualism SA----------> rm1 . . . sm1--------->RA SB----------> rm2 . . . sm2--------->RB Compound bilingualism SA

RA rm . . . . . . . . . . . .sm

SB

RB

Figure 3.1. Representational mediational processes in coordinate and compound bilingualism

Types of bilingualism

61

As with every neo-behaviouristic theory, this theory also has its benefits: it can be relatively easily validated. Lambert, Havelka & Crosby (1958) found that the language systems of coordinated bilinguals are functionally more independent than the language systems of compound bilinguals, which is shown also in the more pronounced associative independency of the equivalent words of the two languages these researchers assessed. They also drop the hypothesis that the process of translation is quicker in compound bilinguals. They investigated French-English Canadian bilinguals, and in the same investigation, they found that the connotative meaning of the same words is in coordinate bilinguals more different than in compound bilinguals. Although many researchers emphasised that these two types of bilingualism should be imagined as the extreme sides of a continuum—on the one side the coordinate, and the other side compound bilinguals—alleviating a too simple dichotomy in that way, and although experimental psycholinguistic has yielded some evidence on the pertinence of this distinction (Jakobovits & Lambert, 1961; Göncz, 1975), still it seems that it has raised more problems than it solves. First of all, it is not possible to posit someone’s lifelong inclusion within the coordinate or compound group only based on the sources of language learning. At the same time, it is also true that this distinction explains the influence of the environment on the semantic aspects of language, as well as partly explaining how coordinate bilinguals can hold their languages apart. Conversely though it makes it more difficult to understand how compound bilinguals succeed at the same task.

3.2. Language independence and language interference: models of bilingual/multilingual functioning There have been several investigations into the interaction of the language systems of bilingual individuals, namely, the phenomena of language independence and language interference. Language independence is the skill of a bilingual or multilingual individual to separate languages, while language interference refers to the phonological, lexical, syntactic and semantic systems of one language mixing occasionally with the systems of the other language. Penfield & Roberts (1959) in their “one switch model of bilingual functioning” assume the existence of a neurophysiological mechanism that automatically switches off one language system while the other one is in operation. Macnamara (1967a, 1967b) offers his “two switch model of bilingual functioning”. In his opinion, the bilingual or multilingual individual decides on his own in which of their languages

62

Chapter III

they wish to speak, and they activate the coding system in that language. Linguistic stimuli coming from the environment automatically activate the decoding system of the language that they originate in. If we ask a bilingual person to react in one language, yet they are subjected to stimuli from the other language at the same time, both their languages become activated and interfere with each other; decoding in one language hinders coding in the other one. This was proved by the bilingual version of the Stroop Colour-Word Interference Test. This is a method that activates two languages at the same time: the coding system of one, and the decoding system of the other. It comprises of 100 colour names in incongruent print. (e.g., the word red printed in blue). The task of the subject is to say in one language the colour of the print disregarding the colour named in the other language. According to the one switch model, the reaction ought to come as fast as it does in the control situation when the task is to name coloured surfaces and there are no disturbing stimuli since the decoding system of the language that is presently not in use should be automatically switched off. Yet, according to the two switch model, we can expect strong interference since the decoding system of the second language also becomes activated when we react in the first language. Examinations have proved (Jakobovits & Lambert, 1961; Göncz, 1975; Göncz & Varga 1985, 1986)5 that a bilingual individual is not able to block out one of their languages while they are functioning in the other one—the time to complete the task takes longer not only when we activate the coding and decoding systems in the same language, but also when the coding is on in one language at the same time as the decoding in the other language. Results have therefore not proven the correctness of the “one switch model of bilingual functioning”. The “two switch model of bilingual functioning” provides us with a fuller explanation: decoding that takes place in the seemingly inactive language (we automatically interpret the name of the colour written down) hinders coding in the other language. The results, therefore, point to a constant interaction between the languages of a bilingual individual in the case of both languages influencing that individual at the same time. This is probably the psychological explanation of the fact that both languages of (minority) bilinguals living in a heterogeneous environment are contact variants, which are directed by the norms of both language systems.

Types of bilingualism

63

3.3. A two-dimensional model of bilingualism: a new typology of bilingualism and some characteristics of proposed types in associative behaviour The two-dimensional model of bilingualism, itself a new typology of bilingualism, was compiled based on knowledge on the coordinatecompound dichotomy and knowledge taken from the theory of interference. In the coordinate–compound distinction psychological findings concerning interference are applied to the bilingual situation. That is to say that the bilingual person has learned to associate the same object or situation with language indicators from two languages and to respond to the same stimulus with two different reactions. The consequence of this is interference, which may be manifested in prolonged reaction time, in the absence of reaction, or in language errors. For interference to be reduced, the languages should be learnt thoroughly from separate sources. In the concepts of coordinate and compound bilingualism, the first condition for the reduction of interference has been taken into consideration. By further introducing the second condition, through the variables which are denoted as the degree of bilingualism, it proved possible to draw finer distinctions within this dichotomy (Göncz, 1984). The degree of bilingualism indicates either balanced bilingualism (equal knowledge of the two languages) or dominant bilingualism (notably better knowledge of one of the languages). By crossing the dimensions of coordination–complexity and balance– dominance four types of bilingualism can be obtained (see Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. Four types of bilingualism (Source: Göncz, 1984, p. 732)

64

Chapter III

In type A, the languages are in coordinate relation and are equally known; in type B, coordination becomes crossed with dominance; in type C, compoundness and balance are taken into consideration; and in type D, a relation of compoundness arises between language systems which are not equally known. In conformity with the findings on interference, it may be posited that the interference between language systems at the semantic level decreases progressively in the direction A > B > C > D. In a research study with secondary school pupils (aged about 18) whose mother tongue was Hungarian, but who knew also Serbo-Croatian to a different degree, and were distributed into the above groups (according to their questionnairebased answers on how and when have they acquired their languages, and according to their self-evaluation of knowledge of productive and receptive language skills in their languages), the results indicated that the similarity between equivalent words in the two languages did indeed decrease in conformity with the foreseen pattern. In other words, the extent of interference between the language systems at the semantic level was smallest in type A, and greatest in type D (Göncz, 1984, p. 740). In the same study, amongst the members of these bilingual groups, certain differences emerged in their associative behaviour. This behaviour was studied through the number of continuous associations on the same words in the two known languages and certain characteristics in the production of free associations. The main results of this investigation can be seen in Table 3. 1.

Types of bilingualism

65

Table 3.1. Differences in the connotative and associative meaning in the same words of the two languages meaning.

Legend: A, B, C, D = types of bilingualism; Co = Coordinate; Cp = Compound; Ba = Balance; Do = Dominant; F = F-test (for difference in group-means); H = H-test (Kruskall-Wallis test for difference in group-means); t = t-test (for difference in group-means); P = level of significance; and M = arithmetic mean

66

Chapter III

In Table 3.1 the analysed forms of linguistic behaviour are presented in a dimension (on a scale) on which the different types of bilingualism, that is the two independent variables of the investigation (coordinateness– compoundness and balance–domination), are posited. On the first two dimensions (I.) can be seen the place of the types of bilingualism; on the third and fourth dimension is the place of the coordinated and compound bilinguals (II.); and on the fifth and sixth dimension the place of the dominant and compound bilinguals (III.). The statistical tests on the left show which test was used to establish the difference between groups. The level of significance above the first two dimensions refers to the significance of the difference of the types of bilingualism from the mean value of the investigated aspect of language behaviour. The other scales refer to the level of significance in the difference between the two groups. Closer to the left side of the dimensions are the groups in which there are bigger differences in the associative and connotative meanings between the words of the two languages, and this side is marked with “+” because it indicates the “more desirable” aspect of the investigated form of language behaviour. The “ņ” sign on the right refers to the difference between the same words of the two languages in the connotative and associative meaning, that is it refers to the “less desirable” sort of the form of investigated language behaviour. The numbers above the letters show the mean result of the group. The results in Table 3.1 are in accordance with the expectation concerning the decrease of independence between the language systems. The semantic independence between the language systems is the greatest in Type A, then in type B, next in type C, and finally, in type D. This holds both for the semantic and for the associative meaning as well. Significant differences appear also between the coordinate and compound, and between the balance and dominant groups. A much more independent language system on the semantic level is in the coordinate and balance groups, in contrast to the compound and dominant groups. All that means is that in this investigation the empirical evidence gave support to the proposed typology. In the same study, amongst the members of these bilingual groups, certain differences emerged in their associative behaviour in both of their languages. This behaviour was studied through the number of continuous associations for the same words in the two known languages and certain characteristic in the production of free associations. Consideration was given to the number of associations by completion and prediction (it is known that these tend to be more numerous amongst children) and by

Types of bilingualism

67

categorization and opposition (characteristic of the more ‘mature’ associations formed by adults). It was also given to the number of syntagmatic and paradigmatic associations (syntagmatic associations being more frequent at an earlier age) and to the frequency of associations between adjectives and verbs (rather than nouns)—a tendency which may indicate a more ‘nuanced’ language knowledge, similarly to the number of continuous associations. Using these analyses as a basis, one may summarise certain characteristics of individual types of bilingualism, taking into account the semantic aspects. In type A, the language systems attain maximal separation at the semantic level. Bilingual persons of this type produce an average number of continuous associations concerning other persons with knowledge of the same two languages, which may be an indication of the size of their vocabulary. In the first language, the associations are more ‘mature’ than in the other types of bilingualism in this typology. In type B there is somewhat less semantic independence between the languages than in type A. In this group, the greatest number of continuous associations is given in the first language, while the vocabulary in the second language is poorer. The manner of associating is still ‘mature’. In type C there is still less semantic independence between the language systems. There is only a small number of continuous associations in the first language, and the manner of associating is less ‘mature’. In type D the language systems are least separate. Apart from the wealth of the continuous associations in the first language, in all other aspects studied this type of bilingualism is the least desirable. To the question of which type of bilingualism should be developed, taking as indicators the aspects studied, no categorical answer exists. The answer depends on which aspect of linguistic behaviour is considered most essential and on which language is given priority. ******** The interest of today’s researchers for the problems described in this chapter is still very present (Krizman & Marian, 2015). The results of such investigations as those discussed above have been confirmed in subsequent research. Today’s dominant viewpoint is, that whereas language input leads

68

Chapter III

to activation of the single language system in a monolingual person, in a bilingual or multilingual individual both or more languages are automatically activated (Kuipers & Thierry, 2010; Marian & Spivey, 2003; Shook & Marian, 2013; Spivey & Marian, 1999) and so one or multiple languages must be inhibited for communication to proceed (Kroll et al., 2008; van Heuven et al., 2008). This process of cross-linguistic coactivation and the need to inhibit irrelevant language necessitates increased activation of the executive system during communication for a bilingual or multilingual person relative to a monolingual one. The heightened need to actively engage inhibitory and attentional processes— i.e., functions of the executive system—during communication leads to the enhancement of some executive abilities. For example, bilinguals show cognitive control advantages on tasks requiring attentional focus, conflict resolution, switching, and flexibility (Bialystok, 2005, 2009, 2011; Bialystok & Craik, 2010; Bialystok & Majumder, 1998; Bialystok & Martin, 2004; Bialystok, Martin, & Viswanathan, 2005; Bialystok & Viswanathan, 2009; Carlson & Meltzoff, 2008; Krizman et al., 2012; Martin-Rhee & Bialystok, 2008). Moreover, because bilinguals may utilise the components of the executive network differently as a result of their experience managing multiple languages (Abutalebi et al., 2011), this may result in differences in how they interact with their auditory environment relative to monolinguals (Blumenfeld & Marian, 2011). The connections between multilingualism and executive functions are described in detail in the next chapter of this book.

Notes 1

Psycholinguistics is a discipline that studies the linguistic features of psychological reality. It also studies, to a lesser degree, the psychological aspects of linguistic reality. It investigates humans in the process of communication, taking into consideration the views of modern linguistics on language. It is interested in the processes of coding (or encoding) and decoding, that is, in the process of how thought becomes an utterance or the utterance a thought, or rather, in how language as a system of signs becomes actualized in speech as a form of behaviour. It also studies the role of speech in thinking, as well as the role of thinking and other psychological functions in speech. It can be characterised as the methodological and subject-matter synthesis of psychology and linguistics. Its branches are theoretical psycholinguistics (psychological analysis of linguistics as the general science of language), experimental psycholinguistics (experimental testing of hypotheses indicating relations between psychological and linguistic phenomena), developmental psycholinguistics (relations between speech and thinking in the process of mental development, baby talk, nonverbal and preverbal communication etc.), biological psycholinguistics (relations between linguistic

Types of bilingualism

69

universals and biological bases), clinical psycholinguistics (speech disorders, aphasia, the speech of the psychotic), anthropological psycholinguistics (cultural determinants of speech and language, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis), social psycholinguistics (social functions of speech, speech differences in individuals and groups, the role of speech in socialization), and psycholinguistics of multilingualism (multilinguals’ linguistic and language usage problems). According to (Gósy, 1999) it has five main fields: speech production, speech perception and comprehension, acquisition of the mother tongue, speech disorders, and reading. 2 Macnamara (1966) proposed three groups of tests for measuring the degree of bilingualism:

1. Fluency tests, in which the development of the language system is established through the abundance of verbal production or through the speed of response (reaction time to verbal stimuli) in the two languages. In the case of, for example, continuous associations being used, the more developed language is the language in which more associations are given. 2. Flexibility tests, in which the task is to express the same term in as many ways as possible in both languages. 3. Questionnaires, where self-assessment or assessment by others is used to estimate the strength of exposure or the impact of two languages, or to estimate frequency of language usage, or the assessment of the level of productive and receptive language skills. Because the correlations of these measures are high, it is justifiable to use just one global indicator of the degree of bilingualism. This indicator can be calculated through the Balance Score (BS), which is equal (regarding, for example, continuous associations) to ‫ گ‬of associations in the first language - ‫ گ‬of associations in the second language/‫ گ‬of associations in the first language + ‫ گ‬of associations in the second language × 100. A result between +/- 30 points indicates balanced bilingualism, and a result outside this interval means dominant bilingualism in one of the languages. 3 Studying

the consequences of the degree of bilingualism on associative behaviour of bilinguals, in one of his investigations Genc [Göncz] (1976) compared 20 balanced and 20 dominant Hungarian–Serbo-Croatian bilinguals in their free associations given to 70 stimuli (30 nouns, 20 verbs and 20 adjectives) taken from the Kent-Rosanoff list (1910, as cited by Tresselt & Mayzner, 1964). Their answers in both of their languages were categorised into word classes. Differences in the frequencies of answers were obtained only in the first language (Ȥ2=22,17, df=3, p