ChildhoodBilingualism:AspectsofLinguisticCognitive,andSocialDevelopment

Editedby

PeterHomelMichaelPalijDorisAaronsonNewYorkUniversity

LEALAWRENCEERLBAUMASSOCIATES,PUBLISHERS1987Hillsdale,NewJerseyLondon

iii

Copyright1987byLawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedinanyform,byphotostat,microform,retrievalsystem,oranyother

means,withoutthepriorwrittenpermissionofthepublisher.

LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.,Publishers365BroadwayHillsdale,NewJersey07642

LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationDataChildhoodbilingualism.

ContainsrevisedpaperspresentedataConferenceonChildhoodBilingualism,heldatNewYorkUniversity,June2526,1982.

Includesbibliographiesandindex.

1.Bilingualisminchildren.2.Languageacquisition.3.Childdevelopment.I.Homel,Peter.II.Palij,Michael.III.Aaronson,Doris.IV.ConferenceonChildhoodBilingualism(1982:NewYorkUniversity)

P115.2.C481987404'.2868955ISBN0898598060

PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica10987654321

iv

ContentsPreface ixPARTIINTRODUCTION1ChildhoodBilingualism:

IntroductionandOverview 3PeterHomel,MichaelPalij,DorisAaronsonIntroduction, 5LanguageAcquisitionandProcessing, 5BilingualismandCognitiveDevelopment, 6BilingualismandSocialDevelopment, 7Bidialectism, 7ConcludingRemarks, 8.References, 92BilingualismandLanguagePolicy:FourCaseStudies 11PeterHomel,MichaelPalijCanada, 11

TheSovietUnion, 14TheUnitedStates, 19ThePeople'sRepublicofChina, 22SomePsychologicalImplications,24References, 26

v

PARTIILANGUAGEACQUISITIONANDPROCESSING 293TheSecondLanguageLearnerintheContextoftheStudyofLanguageAcquisition 31KenjiHakutaEffectsofCognitiveMaturity, 33EffectsofLinguisticStructure:L1andL2Similarities, 37EffectsofLinguisticStructure:NativeLanguageTransfer, 40EffectsofAge, 43LanguageUniversalsasanIntegratedPerspective, 44InSearchofPsychologicalCorrespondence, 48Conclusions, 51Acknowledgment, 52References, 524.BilingualismLanguageProficiency,andMetalinguistic

57

vi

DevelopmentJimCumminsTheConstructofBilingualism, 58TheConstructsofLinguisticandMetalinguistic

Proficiency, 61References, 715TheImpactofLanguageDifferencesonLanguageProcessing:AnExamplefromChineseEnglishBilingualism 75DorisAaronson,StevenFerresTheStructureandMeaningofLexicalCategoriesinEnglish, 76AnOverviewofChineseEnglishDifferences, 77LinguisticPerformancebyChineseEnglishBilinguals, 79AComparisonofSentenceProcessinginBilingualsandMonolinguals, 86MethodsfortheRatingStudy, 87Subjects, 88ResultsoftheRatingStudy, 89MeaningRatings, 96

StructureRatings, 103TheRoleofVerbsinSentenceStructure, 107ComparisonofStructureandMeaning, 109DevelopmentalImplicationsofChineseEnglishDifferences, 112Summary, 115Acknowledgments, 116References, 117vi

6AcquiringandProcessingFirstandSecondLanguages:CommentsonHakuta,Cummins,andAaronsonandFerres

MartinD.S.BraineReferences,

PARTIIIBILINGUALISMANDCOGNITIVEDEVELOPMENT1297TheRelationshipofBingualismtoCognitiveDevelopment:Historical,MethodologicalandTheoreticalConsiderations 131MichaelPalij,PeterHomelAHistoricalView, 131MethodologicalConsiderations, 138TheoreticalAspects, 141Conclusions, 146Acknowledgment, 146References, 1478Bilingualism,CognitiveFunction,andLanguageMinorityGroupMembership 149EdwardDeAvilaIntroduction, 149

vii

BackgroundofStudies, 149Sample, 153DescriptionofTreatmentApproach(FindingOut/Descubrimiento), 153OutcomeMeasures, 154Results, 158ConcludingRemarks, 163References, 1669Bilingualism:CognitiveandSocialAspects 171JosephGlickSomeCommentsonBilingualism, 171SocialNatureofBilingualism, 174References, 179PARTIVBILINGUALISMANDSOCIALDEVELOPMENT18110SocialPsychologicalBarrierstoEffectiveChildhoodBilingualism 183DonaldM.TuylorMultilingualIdeologies, 184DeculturationIdeology, 186vii

SeparationIdeology, 187AssimilationIdeologyIntegrationistIdeologyAcknowledgment,References

11TheEffectsofBilingualandBiculturalExperiencesonChildren'sAttitudesandSocialPerspectives 197W.E.LambertAttitudesandTheirMeasurement, 200ConclusionsAboutImmersionPrograms'EffectsonStereotypes, 207TheFeelingsandReactionTendencyComponentsofAttitudes, 209OverallConclusions, 216References, 21912ASocialCognitivePerspectiveonBilingualism:CommentsonLambertandTaylor 223E.ToryHigginsPARTV 229

viii

BIDIALECTISM13TheLinguisticandSociolinguisticPositionofBlack

EnglishandtheIssueofBidialectalisminEducation 231JohnD.RoyReferences, 24114Continuities/DiscontinuitiesintheFunctionandUseofLanguageasRelatedtoSituationandSocialClass 243WilliamS.Hall,WilliamE.NagySituationalVariation, 243CognitiveImplicationsofInternalStateWordUse, 247PreviousResearchonSocialClassBasedDifferencesinInternalStateWordUse, 248InternalStateWordsWhatTheyAre, 249Subjects, 253Results, 254SelectionofSpeakersforAnalysis, 257ResultsofData 258

Analysis,SESDifferencesinCorrelations, 272ImplicationsfortheMismatchHypothesis, 277Acknowledgment, 278References, 279viii

15CopingorGroping?PsycholinguisticProblemsintheAcquisitionofReceptiveandProductiveCompetenceAcrossDialects

WilliamA.StewartAcknowledgment,References

AuthorIndex 299SubjectIndex 305

ix

ix

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.]

x

Preface

ThisvolumeisbasedprimarilyonaconferenceonchildhoodbilingualismheldatNewYorkUniversityonJune25and26,1982.Theideafortheconferencegrewoutofaseriesofdiscussionsbetweentwooftheeditors,PeterHomelandMichaelPalij,whohadsubstantialinterestsinexploringthenatureofbilingualcognitionandtheeffectofbilingualismonpsychologicaldevelopment.We,theeditors,werestruckbythewealthofresearchbutwereappalledbythelackofcommunicationbetweenresearchersin"mainstream"developmentalpsychologythoselookingatlanguagedevelopmentinmonolingualchildrenandresearcherslookingatsimilardevelopmentalprocessesinbilingualchildren.Wethoughtitwouldbeofgreatinterestandpracticalvaluetobringtogetherresearchersfrombothareasinanattempttostimulatedialogueandinteractionbetweenthetwogroups.

ThefirststeptowardholdingtheconferencewastakenwhenPaulDores,ofSUNY,StonyBrook,gaveusacopyofarequestforproposalsfortheSocietyforResearchinChildDevelopment's(SRCD)seriesofstudygroupsandsummerinstitutes.OurinitialproposaltoSRCDforfundingforasummerstudygroupfocusedonfourareasofchilddevelopmentandhowbilingualismmightaffecteachone:languageacquisition,cognitivefunctioning,socialcognitionandcommunication,andpersonalityandemotionaldevelopment.SRCDapprovedtheproposal,addingtheissueofbidialectismanditsrelationshiptobilingualismasanotherareaoffocus.

Thevolumecontainsmostofthepresentationsmadeattheconferenceandfollows,withminorchanges,thegeneralorganizationoftheconference.Duringeachsession,two"bilingual"researchers(i.e.,doingresearchinthebilingualism)presentedageneralreviewoftheissueswithinatopicareaandgave

xi

examplesoftheirownresearchwithinthiscontext.A"monolingual"researcher(i.e.,oneorientedtowardresearchinmonolingualdevelopment)thenpresentedadiscussionoftheissuesraisedbythetwobilingualresearchers,indicatingthepointsofcontactanddeparturebetweenbilingualandmonolingualresearch.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

WethankSRCDforrecognizingtheimportanceofthestudyofchildhoodbislingualismandforprovidingfundingfortheconference.Inparticular,wethankDorothyH.EichornoftheUniversityofCaliforniaBerkeley,whowastheExecutiveOfficerofSRCDatthetimeoftheconference,andViolaMoultonBuck,herassistant;GrayGarwoodofTulaneUniversity,whowasthechairpersoninchargeofSRCD'sstudygroupprogram;andlargaretSpencerofEmoryUniversity,whowasSRCD'sobserverattheconference.

Manypeoplewereveryhelpfulatvariousstages,inbothmakingtheconferencearealityandhelpingtocompletethisbook.WethankDickKoppenaal,ChairmanofthePsychologyDepartmentofNewYorkUniversity,forhissupportoftheconference.WealsoacknowledgethefollowingpeopleanddepartmentsatNewYorkUniversityfortheirhelpinsettinguptheconference:PeterChepusoftheOfficeforFundedAccounts,MichaelRobbinsoftheBudgetandFundAccountingDepartment,andSherryDauletofthePsychologyDepartment,whohelpedinhandlingtheexpensesfortheconference;JacquelineDowningofthePhysicsDepartment,andGraceSunoftheHousingOffice,whohelpedmakethearrangementsforconferencespaceandhousingfortheconferenceparticipants;theCateringServiceofNewYorkUniversityforprovidingrefreshmentsandmealsduringtheconference;andFelixSchererofthePsychologyDepartment,forhistechnicalassistanceinsettinguptheequipmentfortheconference.WearealsodeeplythankfultoSallyThomasonandLauraBrighentiforboththeirmoralsupportandmaterialhelpbefore,during,andaftertheconference.

Aboveall,weareindebtedtoLarryErlbaumandCarolLachmanofLawrenceErlbaumAssociates.Manydifficultiesareattendantwithpublishingabookthattriestospananareaaslargeaschildhoodbilingualism.Wesincerelyfeelthatwithouttheirhelpandseeminglyinexhaustiblepatience,thepreparationofthisvolumewouldnothavebeenpossible.

xii

IINTRODUCTION

1

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.]

2

1ChildhoodBilingualism:IntroductionandOverviewPeterHomelMichaelPalijDorisAaronsonNewYorkUniversity

In1962,PealandLambertpublishedtheresultsofastudycomparingbilingualandmonolingualchildrenonvariousmeasuresofintelligenceandachievement.Theirfindingsweresurprising,atleastinlightofcertainassumptionsthathadbeenprevalentinchildpsychologyuptothattime.Theyfoundnoevidencetoindicateanysortofintellectualdeficiencyinbilingualchildren.Theperformanceofbilingualsonallmeasureswaseitherequivalentorsuperiortothatoftheirmonolingualcomparisongroup.Theseresultswereinclearcontradictiontoabeliefthathadcometobeacceptedastruismbypsychologistsandlaymenalike,especiallyinNorthAmerica:Theacquisitionoftwolanguagesinchildhood.impairsintellectualdevelopmentitleadstomentalconfusionordifficultiesincoordinatinglanguageandthoughtinchildren.TheresultsobtainedbyPealandLambertsuggestedthattherearenodetrimentaleffectsofbilingualism,andtheremayevenbesomecognitiveadvantages.

PealandLambert'sstudyhadamajorimpactonatleasttwoaspectsofchildhoodbilingualism.First,itsparkedarenewedinterestinthestudyofchildhoodbilingualismamongpsychologistsandeducators.Second(andperhapsevenmoreimportant),itprovidedoneofthemajorjustificationsfortheestablishmentofbilingualeducationprogramsduringthelate1960sandearly1970s,especiallyinCanadaandtheUnitedStates.

Thenumber'ofstudiesdealingwithchildhoodbilingualismincreaseddramaticallythroughouttherestofthe1960sand1970s.Mostofthisresearchconcentratedoncognitivedevelopment,basicallyreplicatingtheresultsofPealandLamberteitherwithdifferentmeasuresofcognitiveperformanceorwithdifferentsamplesofbilingualchildren.Afewstudieslookedatthesocialandpersonalaspectsofgrowingupwithtwolanguages.Yetanothersetofstudiesconsidered

3

thesocialphenomenacloselyrelatedtobilingualismbiculturalismandbidialectismandtheroletheyplayinthedevelopmentofthechild.

By1982,researchintochildhoodbilingualismhadproliferatedtosuchanextentthatamajoreffortwasnecessarytobringtogethertheavailabledataonchildhoodbilingualismandprovidesometheoreticalframeworkwithinwhichtounderstandthem.OnJune2122,1982,astudygroupwasheldatNewYorkUniversityentitled"ChildhoodBilingualism:AspectsofCognitive,Social,andEmotionalDevelopment."SponsoredundertheauspicesoftheSocietyforResearchinChildDevelopmentandorganizedbyPeterHomelandMichaelPalijwiththehelpofDorisAaronson,theaimsofthisstudygroupwere(a)tosummarizethecurrentworkonbilingualismandmakeitaccessibletomainstreamdevelopmentalpsychologists;and(b)toprovideresearchersinboththebilingualandthemonolingualresearchareasanopportunitytodevelopanintegratedmodelofthedevelopmentalprocessesoperatinginthebilingualchild.

Thestructureofthestudygroupwasspecificallydesignedtoachievetheseends.Researchersinbilingualismfromanumberofdisciplines,includingpsychology,education,andlinguistics,wereinvitedtodeliverpapersreviewingspecificaspectsofchildhoodbilingualism.Thepaperswereorganizedintosectionscoveringthefollowingareasofinterest:languageacquisition,cognitivedevelopment,socialandemotionaldevelopment,andtherelationshipofbiculturalismandbidialectismtobilingualism.Eachsectionalsoincludeda"monolingual"discussantaresearcherintheparticulararea(e.g.,languageacquisition)whoseownworkhadbeendoneprimarilywithmonolingualchildren.Thisstructureencourageddiscussionanddialoguenotonlyamongscientistsfromvariousareasofbilingualresearch,butalsobetweenbilingualandmonolingualresearcherslookingatsimilaraspectsofchilddevelopment.

Itwasnotthepurposeoftheconferencetoevaluateexistinggovernmentalpoliciesaboutbilingualeducationnortomakerecommendationsforchangingsuchpolicies.Rather,theconferencewasintendedtoprovideanimpartialsummaryandsynthesisoftheresearchinchildhoodbilingualismandbilingualism'seffectondevelopment.Ultimately,however,itwashopedthatprovidingsuchacompilationofinformationaboutchildhoodbilingualismwouldprovetobeofbenefittothoseinvolvedmakingpolicydecisionsconcerningbilingualismandbilingualeducation.

ThepresentvolumeistheendresultoftheSRCDstudygrouponchildhoodbilingualism.Itisintendedassomethingmorethanarecordoftheproceedingsofpapersandpresentationsgivenduringthetwodaysduringwhichthestudygroupmet.Inpreparingtheirmanuscriptsforthisbook,theoriginalparticipantsinthestudygroupwereencouragedtorevisetheiroriginalpresentationsinlightofcommentsordiscussionsthataroseduringthecourseofthestudygroup,aswellastoaddresspointsofconvergenceordivergencetheysawbetweentheirownpresentationsandthoseoftheothers.Theresultisafargreaterdegreeofintegrationamongthevariouspapersthanwouldhavebeenpossibleinaproceedingstypevolume.

4

Thebookisdividedintoseveraltopicareas:(a)languageacquisitionandprocessing;(b)cognitivefunctioning,style,anddevelopment;(c)socialandemotionaldevelopment;and(d)bidialectismandbilingualism.Followingthestructureoftheconference(atwhichmostofthesepaperswereoriginallypresented),eachtopicareahastwoorthreechapterswrittenbyresearchersinbilingualismandadiscussionchapterbyaresearcherwhosemainworkhasbeeninamonolingualcontext.Thefollowingisabriefoverviewofthesechapters.

INTRODUCTION

TheaccompanyingchapterintheIntroductorysectionisbyPeterHomelandMichaelPalijanditprovidesasocialandhistoricaldescriptionofbilingualismandlanguagepolicyinfourcountries:Canada,theSovietUnion,theUnitedStatesandthePeople'sRepublicofChina.Intheirconcludingsection,HomelandPalijdiscussthefutureofbilingualismandlinguisticdiversityineachcountry,aswellassomeofthepossiblepsychologicalrelationshipsbetweenchildhoodbilingualismandthesocialcontextinwhichitoccurs.

LANGUAGEACQUISITIONANDPROCESSING

ThefirstchapterinthissectionbyKenjiHakutafocusesontheprocessesinvolvedintheacquisitionofasecondlanguageandhowtheseprocessescontrastwiththoseinvolvedinfirstlanguageacquisition.Hakutaexaminestheseprocessesandhowtheyareaffectedbysuchfactorsascognitivematurity,similarityinlinguisticstructureofthefirstandsecondlanguage,transferfromthefirstlanguagetothesecond,andageeffects.Heconcludesbyarguingthatthebestwaytoguidefutureresearchinfirstandsecondlanguageacquisitionistoadoptaconceptualframeworkthatidentifieslanguageuniversalsandtypologies(i.e.,categoricalmembershipfeaturesthatidentifyhowonelanguagesystematicallydiffersfromanother).Withinthisframework,researchonsecondlanguageacquisitionisseentobecomplementarytoresearchonfirstlanguageacquisitioninsteadofbeingseparatefromortangentialtoit.

Next,JamesCumminsexaminestheinterrelationshipsamongbilingualism,linguisticproficiency,andmetalinguisticawareness.AccordingtoCummins,itiseasytomisperceivethesefactorsasbeingcategorical(saying,forexample,thatachildiseitherbilingualornot),therebyglossingoverthefactthatthesefactorsconstitutecontinuathattheperformanceofindividualchildrenmayvaryconsiderablyalonganyoneofthesefactors.Cumminsprovidesatwodimensionalschemeforunderstandingtheinterrelationshipamongthesethreefactors:onedimensionreflectsthedegreetowhichthereis"contextual"supportforunderstandingacommunication(bycontextCumminsmeansthesociocul

5

turalsettinginwhichthecommunicationisbeingmade);theseconddimensionreflectsthedegreeofcognitiveinvolvementforthetasktobeperformed.

Thefirstdimensionrangesfromoneextreme,whichcanbereferredtoascontextembeddedwhereacommunicationisembeddedinanappropriatesituation,acontextinwhichtounderstandthecommunicationtotheotherextremeofbeingcontextreduced,wherethereareveryfewcontextualaidsininterpretingthecommunication.Thedimensionofcognitiveinvolvementrangesfromthosetasksthatrequirelittlecognitiveprocessingtothosethatareverydemandinginprocessingdemands.ThismodelallowsCumminstocharacterizeanumberofdifferentstudiesonbilingualproficiencyandmetalinguisticawareness.

ThechapterbyAaronsonandFerresexaminessomeofthedifferencestheyhavefoundinEnglishlanguageprocessingbynativeEnglishspeakersandChineseEnglishbilinguals.StrikingdifferencesbetweenthetwogroupsseemtobedirectlyattributabletodifferencesinthestructuresoftheEnglishandChineselanguages.OneofthemostintriguingconclusionsdrawnfromtheseresultsisthattraditionalgrammaticalcategoriesfoundinEnglishmaynothaveexactcounterpartsinChinese.Differencesinlinguisticperformanceappeartoberelatedtothebilingual'sknowledgeandexperiencewiththedifferencesinbothlanguages,especiallywhenthelanguagesderivefromdifferentlanguagefamilies.

MartinBraineprovidesadiscussionofthesethreechaptersfocusingontheimplicationsofeachfortheorybuildingandfutureresearchbymonolingualresearchersinlanguageacquisitionandprocessing.

BILINGUALISMANDCOGNITIVEDEVELOPMENT

PalijandHomelexaminethequestionofhowbilingualismaffectscognitivedevelopmentinChapter7.Thischapterisdividedintothreesubsections:(a)ahistoricalreviewofstudiesrelatingcognitivedevelopmentandprocessingtobilingualism,(b)theoreticalissuesinvolvedindirectingresearchinthisarea,and(c)methodoligicalproblemswithpastandpresentstudiesandtheuseofcontemporarystatisticaltechniquesinconstructingmorecomprehensiveandvalidmodels.

ThenextchapterbyEdwardDeAvilaexamineshowintelligenceandcognitivestyle,interestandmotivation,andeducationalopportunityandaccessallinteracttoinfluenceschoolbehaviors.DeAvilaarguesthatthepooracademicperformanceseeninmanyschoolsituationsisnotdirectlyrelatedtostudentsbeingbilingual,orevendirectlyrelatedtootherfactorsthatarerelatedtobeingbilingual.Instead,itistheinteractionofthethreepreviouslystatedfactorsthatgivesrisetothepooracademicperformance.Forschoolperformancetoimprove,thesefactorsmustbefacedandeffectivelydealtwith.DeAvilareviewsa

6

studythatclearlyidentifiesthesefactorsandsuggestsonemeansofimprovingstudents'schoolperformance.

JosephGlickconcludesthissectionwithadiscussionofthechaptersbyPalijandHomel,andDeAvila.Heraisesissuesregardingtheroleoftraditionalgoalsineducationandhowthemethodsforimplementingthemoftenoverlookthespecificneedsofstudents.Thisbecomesparticularlyimportantintheconsiderationofclassroomgoalsandperformanceofstudentsfromdifferentsocioculturalbackgroundsandethnolinguisticgroups.

BILINGUALISMANDSOCIALDEVELOPMENT

Inthissection,Chapter10byDonaldTaylorfocusesonsocialpsychologicalfactorsthatpromoteorinhibittheacquisitionofasecondlanguage.Taylorstressestheimportanceofintergrouprelations,thesocioculturalgoalsofeachgroup,andhowthesefactorsinfluencetheacquisitionofsecondlanguagebychildrenfromdifferentgroups.Hedescribesapossiblemodelfordepictingsuchintergroupsituations:a2X2classificationschemewhereonedimensionreflectseitherpositiveornegativerelationsamonggroups,andtheotherdimensionreflectswhetheragroupdesirestomaintainitsowncultureandlanguage.Taylordetailsthesocialandpsychologicalconsequencesthatfollowfromeachofthesepossibleconditionswithinthisschemeandprovidesexamplesfromcontemporarysociety.

WallaceLambert'schapterisconcernedwithhowexperiencesinbilingualandbiculturalsettingsaffecttheattitudesandperspectivesofthedevelopingchild.Hegoesontoshowhowtheseattitudesandperspectivestheninfluencelanguagelearningandthedevelopmentofbilingualism.LambertpresentsexamplesofsomeofthehistoricalforcesthathaveaffectedbothsocialattitudesandresearchinCanada.HealsoreviewsthefindingsoftheCanadianlanguageimmersionprogramsandhowattitudesandlanguagelearningwereaffectedwithinthem.

E.ToryHigginsprovidesthediscussionforthissection.Hetiestogetherthethreadscommontotheseveralchaptersandindicateshownewresearchontheroleofsocialcognitionmayprovideadditionalinsightsintotherelationshipbetweensocialrealityandcognitivefunctioning.

BIDIALECTISM

Althoughthedistinctionbetweenwhatconstituteslinguisticvariationandwhatconstitutesdialectalvariationmaybecontestable,bilingualismitselfmaybedescribedaslanguagevariationattheinterlanguagelevelandbidialectismasthestudyoflanguagevariationattheintralanguagelevel.Dialectsrepresentsystem

7

aticandcoherentlinguisticsystemsthatoperatewithinalargermonolingualframework.Forexample,BlackEnglishhasspecificfeaturesthatidentifyitasabonafidelanguagesystemthatalsousesmanyStandardEnglishgrammaticalformsandwords.

WilliamHallandWilliamNagyexaminehowdifferencesincommunicationpatternsbetweenblackandwhitechildrencanbeattributedtodifferencesinthechildren'sculturalbackground.HallandNagyreportthatblackchildrenusestatewordslike"think,""know,""happen,""see,"and"want"muchlessoftenintheirclassroomsthantheydoathome,wherethelevelofusageofsuchwordsiscomparabletothehomeusagelevelbywhitechildren.Apparentlyblackchildrenexperiencesomesortofdiscontinuitybetweentheirhomeandschoolenvironmentsthatresultsinreducedusageofstatewordsinschool.Thisfindingcontradictsthenotionthatblackchildrencomefromlinguisticallydeprivedbackgroundsandindicatesthattheproblemsthatblackchildrenencounterinschoolmaybeduetofactorsthatarefarmoresubtlethanhasbeenpreviousconsidered.

Next,JohnRoy,inhischapter,reviewsthedevelopmentofBlackEnglishandcontrastsitsdevelopmentwiththatofbilingualismbyimmigrantgroupswhohadnotforciblybeenbroughttoAmericanshores.HebeginswiththedevelopmentofBlackCreoleanddiscusseshowvarioussocialprocessescausedittogiverisetothemorefamiliarBlackEnglishofcontemporarytimes.Hepointsoutthatthispatternofdevelopmentapparentlydiffersfromthatofotherdialects,particularlyregionaldialects.BlackEnglishrepresentsaconvergencetowardStandardEnglishfromBlackCreole,whereasotherdialectsusuallyrepresentadivergencefromStandardEnglishtotheirpresentform.RoyconcludesbyexaminingthefactorsthatmakeitimportantforteachersofEnglishtobesensitivetothedialectalbackgroundoftheirstudents.

WilliamStewartprovidesthediscussionchapterforthislastsectionanddescribessomeofthelinguisticandpsychologicalimplicationsofcrossdialectalcommunication.

CONCLUDINGREMARKS

Thisvolumeisintendedtoserveadualfunction.Ononehand,forthoseunfamiliarwithbilingualresearch,itprovidesacomprehensivesummaryofpastworkinthisarea.Wefeelthattherearemanyaspectsofbilingualresearchthatcancastlightonresearchdoneinotherareasofdevelopmentalpsychology,andviceversa.Forthosefamiliarwithbilingualresearch,thisbookshouldserveaheuristicfunction,providingasourceofideasforfutureinvestigation.Manyofthechapterspresentedherehighlighttheneedtotakeintoaccountthemediatingroleofsocialandculturalfactors;othersdescribepossibleresearchdesignsandstatisticalproceduresthatmightbeusedtohandlesuchmultivariatesituations.

8

Wehopethatthisbookwillstimulatefurtherresearchintothecomplexrelationshipbetweenbilingualismandpsychologicaldevelopmentandprovideamorecomprehensiveviewofthelinguistic,cognitive,social,andemotionalprocessesinvolvedinthedevelopmentofthebilingualchild.

REFERENCES

Peal,E.,&Lambert,W.E.(1962)."Therelationofbilingualismtointelligence".Psychological Monographs,76,123(No.546).

9

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.]

10

BilingualismandLanguagePolicy:FourCaseStudiesPeterHomelMichaelPalijNewYorkUniversity

Inthischapter,weexaminethelanguagepoliciesoffourcountries:Canada,theSovietUnion,theUnitedStates,andthePeople'sRepublicofChina.Inparticular,wetrytoindicatethedifferentperspectivethateachofthesecountrieshastakenwithregardtolinguisticdiversityandbilingualismandhowthisisreflectedinthemannerinwhicheachcountryapproachesbilingualeducation.

Wefirstpresentageneraloverviewofeachcountry,includingadescriptionofthegenerallinguisticandethniccompositionofthecountry,aswellassomeofthepastandpresenttrendsinpolicyoftheparticularcountrytowardminoritylanguagesandbilingualism.Wethendiscusssomeoftheimplicationscertainsocialpoliciesmayhaveforthepsychologicaldevelopmentofbilingualchildren.

CANADA

Canadaisofficiallyabilingualcountry,withEnglishandFrenchenjoyingequalstatusasthelanguagesofgovernment.Ofatotalpopulationofapproximately24millionin1976,67%ofallCanadiansreportedEnglishastheirfirstlanguageand26%reportedFrench(Beaujot&McQuillian,1982).TheFrenchspeakersareconcentratedprimarilyintheprovincesofQuebec(87%ofthepopulationoftheprovince)andNewBrunswick(34%).InadditiontoEnglishandFrench,programsforthemaintenanceoflanguagesspokenbyNativeIndiangroupsandtheInuktitut(Eskimo),aswellasthosespokenbymajorimmigrantgroups(German,Italian,Hungarian,andUkrainian),arealsosupportedbytheCanadiangovernment.

ThetotalrateofbilingualisminCanadais13%.Thebreakdownis33%for

11

FrenchCanadians;8%forEnglishCanadians.OnecauseofsuchdifferentratesofbilingualismamongFrenchandEnglishspeakersappearstobethegeographicaldistributionofbilingualism.Approximately57%ofallbilingualsinCanadaliveinQuebecprovince.Infact,35%ofallbilingualsinCanadaliveintheMontrealarea(Beaujot&McQuillian,1982).

TheEnglishandFrencheachestablishedcoloniesinCanadainthe17thcentury.Bythemid18thcentury,thenumberofEnglishsettlershadincreasedenormouslyascomparedwiththeFrench.In1763,afterdefeatbyEnglandintheSevenYears'War,FrancewasforcedtocedeallofherterritoriesinCanadatotheBritish.

Overtheyears,anumberofofficialconcessionsweremadetoFrenchspeakingCanadians.TheQuebecActof1774recognizedQuebecasaFrenchspeakingareaandallowedtheFrenchtheretomaintaintheirownreligiousandpublicinstitutions.Inparticular,theCatholicChurchremainedincontroloftheeducationalsysteminQuebec.TheseconcessionsweremaintainedundertheConfederationActof1867,whichalsogaveallCanadianstherighttopoliticalparticipationatboththenationalandprovinciallevels.1

Unfortunately,theofficialrightsaccordedtheFrenchfailedtooffsetwidespreadsocialandeconomicdiscriminationthattheyexperiencedfromtheEnglishspeakingmajority(Whitaker,1984).OneofthemajormeansofcontrolovertheFrenchwastheuseofEnglishinalmostallaspectsofgovernment,commerce,andhighereducation.AddedtothiswasthegenerallyconservativeroleoftheCatholicChurchinFrenchCanadiansociety,encouragingthepassiveacceptanceofthestatusquoamongtheFrench.

EveninQuebec,withitsmajorityofFrenchspeakers,theEnglishspeakingcommunitystillsucceededinmaintainingpoliticalcontrolatboththelocalandtheprovinciallevelsbymeansoftheireconomicpower.TheyownedmostofthebusinessesandfactoriesandtendedtoshowfavoreithertoothernativeEnglishspeakersortothoseFrenchwhowerefairlywellassimilatedintotheEnglishspeakingculture.

Bythe1960s,however,therewasagrowingmovementinthemajorFrenchspeakingareascallingfortheCanadiangovernmenttoshowagreaterrecognitionofthelinguisticandpoliticalrightsofFrenchspeakers.ItwasinresponsetothisthataRoyalCommissiononBilingualismandBiculturalismwasconvenedbetween1965and1968tolookintotheseproblems.Onthebasisofthesuggestionsofthecommission,theOfficialLanguagesActwasadoptedin1969,declaringthatEnglishandFrenchweretobetheofficiallanguagesofCanadaandthattheypossessequalstatusintermsoftheiruseinallaspectsofgovernment.

Theprimarypurposeoftheactwastoencouragebilingualismataninstitu

____________________1Kaalt(1977)hasalsosuggestedthat,indeferencetotheFrenchCanadianswhowouldhaveseensuchanattemptasthefirststepinitsownassimilation,attemptstoassimilateothernonEnglishspeakinggroupswhocameasimmigrantswerenotasstronginCanadaastheywereintheU.S.

12

tionallevelinanefforttoprovideequalsocialandgovernmentalservicesforbothEnglishandFrenchspeakers.Coupledwiththis,however,wereofficialeffortsinsupportofeducationalopportunitiesforminoritystudents,aswellastheestablishmentofprogramsofbilingualeducationandsecondlanguageinstructionforbothFrenchandEnglishspeakers.

AccordingtoGrosjean(1982),theresultsoftheOfficialLanguagesActappeartobeencouraging.Forexample,censusresultsindicatethatagrowingnumberofNativeEnglishspeakersespeciallyinQuebecarelearningandusingFrench.Ontheotherhand,however,aboutathirdoftheFrenchchildrenoutsideofQuebecprovinceapparentlystilldonotreceiveinstructionintheirnativelanguage.

OneofthefearsexpressedamongFrenchCanadiansisthatbecausetheyconstituteaminoritygroupwithinCanada,thegeneralencouragementofbilingualismmightresultinanincreasedtendencytowardassimilationofFrenchCanadianspeakersintothedominantEnglishspeakingcommunity.ThiswouldcompoundthelossofFrenchspeakersthatisalreadytakingplaceinQuebecasaresultofthelowbirthrateamongtheFrench,themigrationofFrenchspeakerstoother,nonFrenchspeakingareasofCanada,thepreferenceofnewimmigrantssettlinginQuebectolearnEnglishratherthanFrench,amongotherfactors(Beaujot&McQuillian,1982).

Thelate1960sandearly1970switnessedthegrowthofaseparatistmovementamongtheFrenchinQuebec.ThePartiQuebecoiscameintopowerinQuebecprovincewithaplatformcallingforthepreservationofaFrenchspeakingQuebecandagreaterdegreeofautonomyoftheprovincefromtherestofEnglishspeakingCanada.In1977,undertheadministrationofthePartiQuebecois,anactwaspassedmakingFrenchtheonlyofficiallanguageoftheprovince.BusinesseswererequiredtoadoptFrenchasthelanguageofeverydayaffairs,childrenofimmigrantswerecompelledtolearnFrenchinschools,andchildrenofEnglishspeakingparentswereallowedtobetaughtinEnglishonlyiftheirparentscouldprovethattheythemselveshadbeentaughtinEnglishintheprovince.

ThefederalgovernmentofCanadagenerallymaintainedapolicythatsoughttocountertheseparatistmovementamongtheFrenchinQuebecwhileatthesametimecontinuingtoencourageabilingualCanada.In1982,anewCanadianconstitutionwasproclaimedthatessentiallycontainedalltheprovisionsoftheoriginalActofConfederationof1867,aswellasalloftheamendmentsthathadbeenmadetoitovertheyears.Inaddition,itcontainedcertainproposalsthathadbeenworkedoutwiththeleadersofthevariousprovinces.

AmongthesewasaCharterofRightsandFreedomsthatcontainedaprovisiongivingparentstherighttochooseeitherEnglishorFrenchasthelanguageofinstructionfortheirchildreninanyprovincewherethenumberswarrantedit.ThischarterservedasthebasisfortheCanadianSupremeCourt'sdecisionin1984tostrikedowntheprovisionoftheQuebecActthatrestrictedEnglish

13

instructiontochildrenofparentswhohadbeeneducatedinEnglishinQuebec.

Ontheotherhand,theCanadiangovernment'sactionswithregardtotheprovinceofManitobaseemedtounderscorethegovernment'sdedicationtothecauseofbilingualism.AlthoughManitobahadenteredtheCanadianConfederationasabilingualprovincein1870,theprovincialgovernmentsubsequentlyrescindedthelanguagerightsofitsFrenchspeakingminority.In1979,theCanadianSupremeCourtorderedthattheserightsberestored.After4yearsofdelaybyManitoba,abillwaspassedintheCanadianParliamentinsupportoftheoriginalcourtdecisiontorestorebilingualisminManitoba.

Insummary,Canadaappearstohaveestablishedalongtermcommitmenttoencouragingandmaintainingbilingualismatboththenationalandtheprovinciallevels.Practically,thismaybeviewedasanefforttoensurethatbothFrenchandEnglishspeakingCanadiansenjoyequalaccesstosocialservices,business,andeducation.Moreimportant,however,thismaybeviewedasasolutiontothegeneralproblemofreconcilingthedemandsofnationalunitywiththeneedsofitsmultilingualmulticulturalsociety.

Oneindicationofthesuccessofthispolicymaybethefactthatethnicpolarizationhasbecomelessofanissueinrecentyears.ThisnotionhassomesupportintheapparentdeclineofthePartiQuebecoisduringtheearly1980s,whichculminatedinthedefeatofthepartyintheprovincialelectionsof1985.Ontheotherhand,Whitaker(1984)hassuggestedthatthedeclineofthePartiQuebecoismayhavebeentheunintentionalresultofitsownefforts.Becauseofitslanguageprograms,itmayhavesucceededinstrengtheningtheFrenchidentityofQuebec,thusrelievingtheveryanxietythathadoriginallycompelledFrenchspeakerstosupportthePartiQuebecois.Inanycase,bilingualisminCanadaappearstobeakeyelementinitsnationalpolicy,andtherearenoindicationsatthistimeofanymovementawayfromthatposition.

THESOVIETUNION

TheSovietUnion(theUnionofSovietSocialistRepublics),withapopulationofapproximately262millionpeople,isaconstitutionalfederationconsistingof15memberrepublics.ThelargestistheRussianSocialistFederalistSovietRepublic(RSFSR),whichservesasthecenteroftheSovietgovernment.Theremainingrepublicsarereferredtoas"national"republics.TheycorrespondmoreorlesstothetraditionalhomelandsofthemajornonRussiannationalorethnicgroupsthatmakeupatleasthalfthepopulationoftheSovietUnion.2

____________________2Thepopularpracticeofusingtheterm"Russia"torefertotheSovietUnion(whichevenSovietsarepronetodo)thusrepresentsafailuretoappreciatetheextentofethnicandlinguisticdiversityinthatnation.Itparallelstheuseoftheterm"America"inreferringtotheUnitedStatessomethingthathasoftenbeencriticizedbytheotherpeoplesofbothNorthandSouthAmerica.

14

Therearesome130distinctlanguagesspokenwithinthebordersoftheSovietUnion(Comrie,1981;Isayev,1977).SomeideaoftheextentoflinguisticdiversityintheSovietUnioncanbegottenfromthefollowinglistofmajorlanguagefamiliesspokenintheSovietUnion,aswellassomeprominentexamplesofeachfamily:1. IndoEuropean,includingtheSlaviclanguages(Russian,Ukrainian,andByelorussian),

Balticlanguages(Lithuanian,Latvian),Iranianlanguages(e.g.,TadjikandKurd),Moldavian(aromancelanguagesimilartoRomanian),Yiddish,andArmenian.

2. Altaic,includingtheTurkiclanguages(e.g.,Uzbek,Kazakh,Azerbaijani),Mongoliclanguages(BuryatandKalmyk),andtheTungusManchulanguages.

3. Uralic,includingtheFinnoUgariclanguages(e.g.,Estonian,Karelian,andMordovian)andtheSamodicgroup.

4. IberianCaucasic,includingtheKartvelianlanguages(e.g.,Georgian),alongwiththeAbkhazAdyghe,theNakh,andtheDaghestanilanguages.

5. PaleoAsiatic,includingtheChukchiKachatdalandEskimolanguages.IntheSovietcensus,adistinctionismadebetweennationalorethnicidentityandnativelanguage(NarodnoeKhozjajstvoSSSR19221982,1982).Forexample,Russianisthedeclaredlanguageof58.6%ofthetotalpopulationoftheSovietUnion.ThisgroupcanbefurtherdividedintoethnicRussianswholivewithinthebordersoftheRSFSR(approximately114millionaccordingtothe1979census);ethnicRussianswholiveintheotherrepublicsoftheSovietUnion(24million);andnonethnicRussianswhodeclareRussianastheirnativelanguage(13million,or5%ofthetotalpopulation).

Othermajorlanguages(presentedinorderofpercentageofspeakers)spokenintheSovietUnioninclude:Ukrainian(14%),Uzbek(4%),Byelorussian(3%),Kazakh(2.2%),Tatar(2.2%),Azerbaijani(1.8%),Armenian(1.3%),Georgian(1.3%),Lithuanian(1.1%),Moldavian(0.91%),Tadjik(0.86%),Chuvash(0.61%),Latvian(0.58%),Kirghiz(0.58%),andEstonian(0.37%),Bilingualsmakeup21.5%ofthetotalpopulationoftheSovietUnion(Comrie,1981).AmongnonRussianstherateis42.6%;amongRussians,itis3.1%.EvenamongthoseRussianslivinginnonRussianareas,therateofbilingualismstilltendstobefarlowerthanthatforthenonRussiansintheparticulararea.

ThelinguisticandethnicdiversityoftheSovietUnionisadirectresultofitsprerevolutionarypast.TheRussianempirewasformedastheresultofaseriesofmilitaryconquestsbetweenthe16thand19thcenturies.Duringthecourseofthisperiod,whathadbegunastherelativelysmallprincipalityofMoscowSuzdalexpandedwestasfarasPolandandtheCarpathianmountains,southasfarastheBlackSeaandtheCaucasusMountains,northasfarasFinlandandtheArctic,andeastasfarasChinaandthePacificOcean.

15

ThelanguagepolicieswhichthetsaristgovernmentadoptedtowardindividualnonRussianminoritiesintheseconqueredareaswerebasedprimarilyonpoliticalconsiderationsspecifictoeachgroup.ArelativelyliberalapproachtolanguagepolicywasadoptedforEstoniaandFinland.AtthetimeoftheirannexationbytheRussianempire,theseareasalreadyhadhighlevelsofcultureandindustrycomparabletothoseinwesternEuropeancountries.Moreover,bothregionswerealreadyunderthepoliticalandeconomicdominationofnonindigenousminorityethnicgroupsethnicSwedescomposedtherulingeliteinFinland,withGermansholdingpowerinEstonia.TheseminoritiesmaintainedtheirdominantstatusbyservingasoverseersandgovernmentofficialsfortheRussians.TheRussiangovernmentaccordedtheseminoritygroupsalimiteddegreeofpoliticalandlinguisticfreedominreturnfortheirloyalty.

ThecaseoftheUkrainiansrepresentsamoreextremepolicy.TodiscourageUkrainianseparatism,animperialdecreewasissuedin1876banningthepublicuseofUkrainian(Savchenko,1970).Itprohibited,amongotherthings,theteachingofUkrainianinschools,thepublicationoforiginalworksandtranslationsinUkrainian,andthepublicperformanceofplaysandsongsinUkrainian.ThegeneralbanagainsttheuseofUkrainianremainedineffectuntiltheRevolutionof1905.

FortherestofthenonRussianlanguageswithintheRussianempire,discouragementwascarriedonthroughapolicyofsocialneglectratherthanofrestrictions.Inthoseregions,noschoolingwasallowedinthenativelanguageasidefromthatconnectedwithreligioustrainingormissionarywork.MoreablenonRussianstudentswereencouragedtolearnRussianandtoassimilateintoRussiancultureinordertosucceedingovernmentorbusiness.

Despitetheeffortsofthetsaristgovernment,nationalisticmovementssteadilydevelopedwithinseveralethnicgroupsduringthe19thcentury.Asaresult,anumberofthesegroupsattemptedtoformtheirownindependent(and,insomecases,socialist)governmentsduringtheperiodoftheBolshevikRevolution.However,facedwiththepotentiallossofrawmaterialsandfoodfrommanyoftheseareas,theBolshevikstookimmediatemilitaryactionagainstthesenationalistgroups.Atthesametime,theBolsheviksadoptedpoliciesdesignedtogainfavoramongthenonRussianminorities.

Thus,oneoftheaimsofthenewSovietstate,asoutlinedbyLeninin1917,becamethefullandequaldevelopmentofallethnicandlinguisticminoritiesintheSovietUnion(Comrie,1981;Kreindler,1982).TherewastobenoofficiallanguageforthenewSovietstate.AllSovietcitizensweretohavecompletefreedomtousetheirnativelanguagesinprivateandinpublic.Publicusageincludedtherighttouseone'snativelanguageforaddressingpublicmeetings,correspondingwiththegovernment,andgivingtestimonyincourt.Moreover,allSovietcitizenswereguaranteedtherighttoreceiveaneducationinandtohaveaccesstoliteratureandculturalmaterialsintheirnativelanguages.

16

Inaddition,theestablishmentofasystemofnationalrepublicsgavethemajorethnicgroupsatleastsomedegreeofautonomyandselfgovernment,althoughprimarypoweralwayslaywiththecentralgovernmentinMoscow.Eachnationalrepublicwasallowedtouseitsnativelanguageastheofficiallanguageofgovernment.Eachnationalrepublicwasgivencontroloverlocalaspectsofeducationalpolicyandoverthedevelopmentofthenationalculture.

The1920switnessedanactivecampaignaimedatencouragingthedevelopmentofnonRussianlanguagesandethniccultures.Forlanguageswithanalreadyexistingwrittenlanguageandliterarytradition,programswerecreatedforsettingupschools,publishingnewspapersandbooks,andsoon.Forthoselanguageswithoutawritingsystemorforwhichthealreadyexistingsystemsofwritingwerecumbersomeandunsuitedtoeasyacquisition,linguistsweresenttostudythelanguagesanddevelopwritingsystemsforthem.

UnderStalin'sleadershipinthe1930s,however,ageneralretrenchmentoccurredinSovietpolicywithincreasinglygreateremphasisbeingplacedontheneedtounifythenationanddevelopcentralizedcontrolofthestate.ThisledtoagrowingencouragementoftheuseofRussianasacommonlanguageforcommunicationamongmembersofdifferentethnicgroups.

ManyofthenonRussianwriters,intellectuals,andscientistswhocameintoprominenceduringthepreviousdecadeeitherperishedduringthepurgesofthe1930sorwereforcedtoconformtomoreideologicallyacceptable(andlessnationalistic)topicsofwritingorresearch(Luckyj,1975;Simirenko,1969).Yetanotherexampleofretrenchmentwasthediscontinuanceofthepublicationofmaterialsinsomelanguages(e.g.,Lapp,Karelian)ontheexcusethattheyhadveryfewspeakers,mostofwhomwerebilingualinother,moreprevalentlanguages.

AsaresultoftheemphasisonnationalunityduringtheSecondWorldWar,the1940ssawincreasesinthegreaterprominencegiventoRussianthantothenonRussianlanguages.ThistrendwasexemplifiedbyStalin'svictorytoastof1945,whereinhepubliclyreferredtoRussiaasthenationthatservedasthe"leadingforceoftheSovietUnion"(Bilinsky,1964).Russianwasproclaimedasthelanguageofhighculture,aswellasthelanguageofsocialism.Asaresult,linguisticreformswereeffectedinvariousnonRussianlanguagestobringthemcloserinappearancetoRussian.ThesereformsconsistedprimarilyofchangesingrammarandorthographybasedonRussianpatterns,andtheintroductionofmanyRussianloanwordsorcalques,whichoftenreplacedwordsthathadalreadybeenwellestablishedintheparticularlanguage.

AfterStalin'sdeathin1953,therewasaperiodofrelaxationintheSovietUnionthatlasteduntiltheresignationofKhruschevin1964.AnofficialacknowledgmentwasmadeofthecontributionofthenonRussiannationalitiestothelifeandcultureoftheSovietUnion:Thedevelopmentofaninternationalculturewasnottoresultinthelevelinganddisappearanceofnationaltraditions.

17

NonRussianminoritiesweregrantedgreaterconcessionsineducationalpolicyandinliteraryandintellectualfreedomofexpression.

Sincethelate1960s,however,theSovietgovernmentappearstohavereturnedtoatacitpolicyencouragingthestatusofRussianastheofficiallanguageoftheSovietUnion.ItisconsideredtobetheonlylanguagewiththestatusofalinguafrancawithintheSovietUnionandistheonlylanguagethatcanbeusedincommunicationwithindividualsfromothernations.

Therehasalsobeenageneralacceptanceoftheeventualconsolidationofsmallerethnicgroupsandlanguagesintolargerones,withtheeventualgoalofdevelopingaunifiedSovietPeoplewithacommonSovietlanguageRussian.Bilingualismappearstobeencouragedaspartofthisgradualincorporationofsmallerlanguagegroupsintolargerones.AccordingtoIsayev(1977):"...bilingualismshouldbeviewedasatransitionalstagetomonolingualismwhichwillbereachedbythesmallerethnicgroupswhentheirassimilationintothecorrespondingnationsiscomplete"(pp.199200).

EvidenceindicatesanactivepolicyofpromotingboththeassimilationofnonRussianminoritiesandtheincreaseduseofRussianvisvisthenonRussiannationallanguages.ThenonRussianrepublicsintheEuropeanportionoftheSovietUnionhaveshownsteadydecreasesinthepercentagesoftheirnativeethnicpopulationswithacorrespondingincreaseinthepercentagesofpersonsdeclaringthemselvesasbeingethnicallyRussian.

Similarly,therehasbeenasteadydeclineinthenumberofcopiesandnumberoftitlesofbooksandpublicationsinnonRussianlanguages,withacorrespondingincreaseinthenumberofimprintsinRussian(Lewis,1972).ScientificandtechnicaljournalsthatwereformerlypublishedinnonRussianlanguagesarenowpublishedinRussian,presumablytomakethemmoreaccessibletoreadersbothwithinandoutsidetheSovietUnion.

YetanothertrendisindicatedbythefactthatnonRussianparentshaveincreasinglybeguntosendtheirchildrentoRussianlanguageschoolsratherthantonativelanguageschoolsinordertoincreasetheirchildren'schancesofsuccessinenteringinstitutionsofhighereducation(Comrie,1981;Kreindler,1982).Eveninthenationallanguageschools,Russianisacompulsorysubjectintheearlygrades,andeffortshavebeenunderwaytointroduceitasearlyaskindergartenandpreschoolclasses.

Inshort,itappearsthatbilingualismiscurrentlybeingviewedasatransitoryphenomenonintheSovietUnionanecessarypartoftheprocessofassimilatingnonRussianminoritiesintoaRussianspeakingSovietnation.Partofthejustificationforthismaybedemographic.Brunner(1981)reportsthatbirthratesamongethnicRussians,aswellasamongthenonRussiannationalitiesintheEuropeanportionsoftheSovietUnion(Ukrainians,Byelorussians,Estonians,etc.),havebeendecliningconsiderablyoverthepast2decades.Overthesameperiod,birthratesamongtheMuslimTurkicnationalities(Uzbeks,Kazakhs,Azerbaijanis,etc.)haveincreased.

18

Onthebasisofhisdemographicdata,Brunner(1981)hasestimatedthat,atpresent,ethnicRussiansprobablyconstituteonly49%ofthetotalofalldraftagemalesandthatby1995theywillconstituteonly46%.ConsideringtheSlavicgroupsasawhole,heestimatesthattheynoware67%ofalldraftagemalesandthatby1995thatfigurewilldeclineto62%.IfthesefiguresarereflectiveofgeneraltrendsintheSovietpopulation,ethnicRussiansmaysooncometoconstituteaminoritygroupwithintheSovietUnion.CurrenteffortstoinculcateamongthenonRussianminoritiesasenseofidentitywithaRussianspeakingSovietculturemaybeanattempttooffsetsuchfuturedemographicchangesintheethnicRussianpopulation.

InherreviewoflanguagepolicyintheSovietUnion,Kreindler(1982)commentedthatitisparadoxicalthatthecountrywhichwasoneofthefirsttochampiontherightsofminoritypopulationstodevelopandmaintaintheirownlanguagesshouldnowbemovingawayfromthatoriginalpolicy.ShepointstothefurtherironythattheSovietUnionappearstobedoingsoatthesametimethatothernationsseemtohaveawakenedtothelinguisticandeducationalneedsoftheirownminoritygroups.

THEUNITEDSTATES

TheUnitedStatesisoftenthoughtofasalinguisticallyandethnicallyhomogenousnation.Althoughthereisnolegalbasisforit,EnglishhascometoassumetheroleoftheofficiallanguageoftheUnitedStates.ThevastnumbersofnonEnglishspeakingimmigrantswhocametotheU.S.overthepast200plusyearspresumablywereallassimilatedintotheEnglishspeakingmainstream,leavingbehindtheiroriginallanguagesandethnicties.Asingle"American"culturethusdevelopedfromtheamalgamationofmanyimmigrantgroupsintoonenational"meltingpot."Thiscultureperhapsshowsinfluencesfromthemanydiversegroupsthatwentintoitsformation,butitstillconstitutesamonolithicentityoflanguageandculture.

ThisnotionofthehomogeneityoflanguageandcultureintheU.S.cameundercriticalscrutinyandreappraisalduringthe1960sand1970s(Glazer&Moynihan,1970;Greer,1974;Novak,1977).Asaresult,thecommonlyaccepted"meltingpot"imageoftheUnitedStateswasfoundtobeonlypartiallycorrect.AlthoughtheU.S.isanationthatprimarilyusesEnglishasalanguageofcommunication,andthereappearstobeadistinctU.S.culture,theU.S.isneitherlinguisticallynorculturallyhomogenous.

TheHarvardEncyclopediaofAmericanEthnicGroups(Thernstrom,Orlov,&Handlin,1980)estimatesthatthereareatleast106distinctethnicgroupsintheU.S.andcautionsthatthisisaconservativeestimatebecauserelatedgroupswereoccasionallycollapsedintoasinglecategory(e.g.,theentryforAmericanIndiansactuallycomprisessome170differentgroups).

19

Moreevidencecomesfromthe1980censusdata(U.S.DepartmentofCommerce1980Census,1983)whichreportsthatofatotalof210millionpeopleintheU.S.,25millionreportedspeakingalanguageotherthanEnglishathome.About7millionofthesenonEnglishspeakerswereundertheageof17.ThemajornonEnglishlanguagesappeartobe:Spanish(11.1millionspeakers);Italian(1.6million);German(1.59million);French(1.55million);andPolish(820thousand).3

TheBilingualEducationActof1968providedfederalsupportfortheestablishmentandfundingofbilingualeducationprogramsinthoseareaswherenonEnglishspeakingchildrenfromlowincomefamiliescomprisedalargeportionoftheschoolpopulation.TheoriginalintentionoftheactwasthatbilingualeducationshouldremedysituationswhereinnonEnglishspeakingchildrenwere,asaresultoftheirinabilitytospeakEnglish,deprivedoftheopportunityforanadequateeducation.ItwasexpectedthatEnglishwouldbeintroducedwiththechild'shomelanguageanditsuseexpandeduntilthechildcouldfunctionadequatelyinEnglish.Thenthechildwouldbetransferredtoaregular,Englishspeakingclassroom.

However,becausebilingualprogramswereadministeredatthestateandlocallevels,interpretationofpolicywasoftensubjecttotheneedsanddesiresofthelocalcommunity.Actualimplementationofbilingualeducationoftenvariedfromitsoriginalintent,sothatitisdifficulttodescribebilingualeducationintheU.S.asaunitaryprogramorphenomenon.SomeschoolsystemsonlyofferedEnglishasaSecondLanguage(ESL)programs,whichwereessentiallyremedialprogramsinwhichtheprimarylanguageofinstructionwasEnglish.OthersystemsofferedinstructioninbothEnglishandthechildren'snativelanguagebutmadetheuseofthenativelanguageonlytransitional,buildingupthechildren'scompetencesufficientlyforthemtoattendregular,Englishspeakingclasses.Othersystemsdevelopedprogramsaimedatmaintainingthechild'snativelanguageandatteachingEnglish.ChildreninsuchprogramsreceivedinstructioninboththeirnativelanguageandEnglish,andoftenreceived,instructionaboutthehistoryandcultureoftheirparticularnationalorethnicgroupaswell.

Effortstoconsolidatefederalpolicytowardbilingualeducationwerestimuatedbytwoeventsthatoccurredin1974.InthecaseofLauv.Nichols,(1974),theSupremeCourtaffirmedthatthefailuretoprovideeducationalassistanceprogramstononEnglishspeakingchildrenwasinviolationofTitleVIoftheCivilRightsAct,whichforbadediscriminationonthebasisofrace,color,ornationaloriginintheoperationofanyfederallyassistedprograms.Inresponseto

____________________3WHilethefigureof25millionasthetotalnumberofpeoplespeakingalanguageotherthanEnglishintheU.S.isquiteimpressive,eventhatmaybeanunderestimate.Fishman(1980b)haspointedoutanumberofproblemsinvolvedincollectingcensusdataandhassuggestedthatthenumberofnonEnglishspeakersintheU.S.maybeashighas40million.

20

this,theDepartmentofHealth,Education,andWelfareissuedguidelinesforlocalschoolsystemsrecommendingbilingualeducationasaspecificsolutiontorectifyingthissituation.

TheBilingualEducationActwasamendedbyCongressin1974tomakeitmoreexplicitinintentanddesign.Bilingualeducationwasdefinedas"instructiongivenin,andstudyof,Englishandtotheextentnecessarytoallowachildtoprogresseffectivelythroughtheeducationsystem,thenativelanguageofthechildrenoflimitedEnglishspeakingability"(pp.186187).Theactstipulatedthatbilingualeducationshouldincludeinstructioninthechildren'sownlanguageinadditiontoEnglishandshouldofferinstructiondealingwithaspectsofthenativeculturalheritageofthechildrenaswell.Finally,itallowedforbilingualinstructionforchildrenotherthanthosefromlowincomefamilies.Congressrenewedthisactin1984;itremainedessentiallyunchangedexceptforaprovisionallowingfor4%ofthefundsallocatedtolocaleducationalsystemsforbilingualeducationtobeusedfor"alternativeinstructionalmethods"oftheirownchoosingmethodsplacingmorestressonEnglishastheprimarylanguageofinstruction.

TheconceptofbilingualeducationasameansofmaintainingthelinguisticandculturalidentitiesofminoritychildrenhasmetwithconsiderableoppositionfromvariousindividualsandgroupswhostillsupporttheideaofalinguisticallyandculturallyhomogenousU.S.AreflectionofthisopinionisseeninrecentattemptsbytheDepartmentofEducationtorescindmanyoftheregulationsfortheconductofbilingualeducationprograms,inparticular,theregulationsspecifyingbilingualeducationastheonlyapproachtoprovidingadequateeducationfortheminoritylanguagechild(Fiske,1985;U.S.Departmentof'Education,1984).SomeofthealternativessuggestedincludeareturntomoretraditionalESLprograms(Keefe,1985).

SuchattemptsbytheDepartmentofEducationareintendedtogivegreaterautonomytolocalschoolsystemstousewhatevermethodofinstructionisbesttoteachminoritylanguagestudentseitherbilingualinstructionorsomemeansofremedialinstructionconductedinEnglish.Critics,however,havechargedthatsuchapolicyismerelyaploytoweakenandeventuallydoawaywithbilingualeducation(Garcia,1985;Howe,1985).

AlthoughquestionsabouttherelativeusefulnessofdifferentapproachestoeducatingchildrenofnonEnglishspeakingbackgroundappeartobeunderconsiderationintheU.S.government,theneedforsuchprogramsappearstobemorecrucialthanever.DemographicprojectionsofchangesinthenumberofnonEnglishspeakingbackgroundindividualsintheU.S.indicatethatthispopulationmayincreaseto34.7millionin1990and39.5millionbytheyear2000.Thenumberofpersonsinthiscategoryundertheageof14willincreaseto5.4millionby1990andto7.7millionbytheyear2000.ThefuturedispositionanddevelopmentofthelattergroupwillbeheavilydependentonthedecisionsconcerningbilingualeducationnowbeingmadebytheU.S.government.

21

THEPEOPLE'SREPUBLICOFCHINA

ThePeople'sRepublicofChina(PRC),withoveronebillionpeople,isthemostpopulousnationintheworld.TheofficiallanguagepolicyofthePRCissimilartothatoftheSovietUnion,anotsurprisingsituation,consideringthecloserelationshiptheChinesecommunistsenjoyedwiththeSovietUnionatleastintheirearlyyears.TherightsofminoritynationalitiesareguaranteedbytheconstitutionofthePRCadoptedin1954(Lehmann,1975).Discriminationagainstnationalminoritiesandtheirlanguagesisprohibited,andallnationalminoritiesaregrantedfullrightstouseanddeveloptheirwrittenlanguages.

ThelanguagesofthePRCarepredominatelySinoTibetan.Han,theofficialdesignationfortheChineselanguage,isspokenby95%ofthepopulation.Hanitselfisdividedintoninemajorsublanguagegroupings:Mandarin4(spokeninBeijingandintheprovincesofGanshu,Shaanxi,Sichuan,Hubei,andYunan),withabout665millionspeakers;Xiang(spokeninHunanprovince),with50million;Gan(spokenlargelyinJiangxiprovince),withabout25million;Huizhou(spokeninsouthernAnhuiprovince),with4million;Wu(spokeninShanghaiandZhejiangprovince),with85million;Minnan(spokeninsouthernFujianprovince),with10million;Minbei(spokeninnorthernFujianprovince),with12million;Hakka(spokenthroughoutsouthernChina),with40million;andYue(orCantonese),with55million(Moser,1985).

TheuseofthetermdialecttorefertodifferentsublanguagesofHanissomewhatmisleading;thedifferencesbetweenthesegroupingsmaybeasgreatasthosebetween,forexample,SpanishandFrench.Moreover,Mandarinitselfcanbefurthersubdividedintoatleastfivedifferentdialectgroups,eachwithitsownsubdialects.

ThedialectspokeninBeijingwasdesignatedtheofficiallanguageoftheRepublicofChinain1911andwasretainedinthatfunctionbythecommunistregimewhenitcameintopowerin1949.ItisusuallyreferredtoasPutonghua,orthecommonlanguage.Moreover,thepronunciationofChinesecharactersthatistaughtinschoolshasbeenstandardized,baseduponthepronunciationthatthesecharactershaveintheBeijingdialectarea.InadditiontoPutonghua,Pinyin,asystemfortranscribingChinesecharactersthatisbasedontheLatinalphabet,hasalsobeenintroducedasadeviceforfacilitatingthelearningofstandardChinesecharacters.ChildrenarefirsttaughttoreadinPinyinandthengraduallyintroducedtotheChinesecharactersthemselves.

AsidefromthedialectgroupsofHan,therearesome58otherminoritynationalitiesmakingupsome6%ofthepopulationofthePRC(about56millionpeople).Themajorminoritylanguagesare:Chuang,with7.8millionspeakers;

____________________4Theterm"Mandarin"isnolongerusedinthePRCasitsuseisassociatedwiththeprerevolutionaryera.Oftenitisreferredtoas"thecommonlanguage"orputonghua(seethediscussioninthetextfollowing).

22

Hui,with3.9million;Uighur,with3.9million;Miao,with2.6million;Yi,with3.3million;Tibetan,with2.8million;ManchuTungus,with2.4million;Mongol,with1.6million;Puyi,with1.3million;andKorean,with1.2million(Dreyer,1976).

Autonomousnationaldistrictsexistinareaswithlargeconcentrationsofnationalminorities.SuchdistrictshavethesamedegreeofautonomyandpowerasthenationalrepublicsintheSovietUnion.However,allgovernmentalinstitutionsinthosedistricts(e.g.,judicialcourts)arerequiredtousethelocalminoritylanguage,andpublicdocumentsarewritteninbothPutonghuaandthelocallanguage.Instructionisinthelocallanguageatboththeelementaryandmiddleschoollevels,andChinesefromtheHanspeakingareaswhoworkorliveinminoritylanguageareasarerequiredtolearnthelocallanguage(Mei,1984).

LiketheSovietUnion,thePRChashadtocontendthroughoutitshistorywiththeproblemofreconcilingethnicandlinguisticpluralitywiththesocialandeconomicgoalsofacentralizedcommuniststate.AlsoasintheSovietUnion,periodsofrelativeaccommodationtotheinterestsofminoritygroups(asindicatedforexample,bysupportforthesystemofautonomousnationaldistricts)havealternatedwithmoreradicalattemptstoeliminatespecialconsiderationforminoritygroupsandtoassimilatethemintotheHanspeakingmainstream.ThelattertendencywasespeciallyevidentduringtheCulturalRevolutionofthe1960s.WiththewidespreaddisruptionofChinesesocietyduringthisperiod,manyofthegovernmentsponsoredagenciesandservicesforsupportingnonHanminoritygroupswereeffectivelydestroyedandhadtobepainstakinglyrebuiltduringthe1970s.

SincetheCulturalRevolution,thePRCappearstohavereturnedtoamorebalancedpolicytowarditsminorities,supportingthemaintenanceofnonHanlanguagesandcultureswhileatthesametimeencouragingthelearningofPutonghuabyallcitizensofthePRC.ThepresentviewistypifiedbythefollowingstatementissuedbytheCommissiononLanguageReformin1984:"BecauseofthevarietyoflanguagesinChina,everyoneisrequiredtospeakthecommonlanguage.Thepolicyisnottoreplaceone'sowndialectbuttobecomebilingualinone'sownlanguageandthecommonlanguage[Putonghua]"(Mei,1984,p.78).TheuseofPutonghuaisbeingencouragedinallaspectsofpubliclife:governmentandlegislature,themilitary,massmedia,schoolinstruction,andtheworkplace.Inaddition,schoolsarebeginningtocreateincentivesforlearningPutonghua,forexample,holdingcontestsandcompetitionswithinandbetweenschools,throughtheuseofpeermonitoring,andsoon.

AnyconclusionsabouttheroleofbilingualisminthelanguagepolicyofthePRCmustbeguardedbecauseofthepaucityofinformation.Moreover,theinformationthatisavailablehascomeprincipallyfromgroupsthat,havingtouredChinabyofficialinvitation(e.g.,Lehman,1975;Mathias&Kennedy,1980;Mei,1984),havebasedmuchoftheirreportsoninformationprovidedby

23

governmentsources.Fromthisinformation,onegathersthattheofficialpolicyofthePRCistomaintainitsminoritylanguageswhileatthesametimeencouragingthelearningofPutonghuaasamediumofcommunicationwithothercitizensofthePRC.Itwouldbepremature,however,todrawanyfirmconclusionsabouttheactualimplementationandresultsofbilingualeducationinthePRCatthistime.

SOMEPSYCHOLOGICALIMPLICATIONS

Comparingthesefourcountries,then,oneseesverydifferentattitudesandapproachestobilingualismandbilingualeducation.TheofficialpositionbothintheU.S.andintheSovietUnionisthatbilingualismisprimarilyatransitionalstageintheprocessofassimilationintothedominantculture.ThepositioninCanadaandthePRC,ontheotherhand,isthatbilingualismisanormal,everydayphenomenonandthattheaimofbilingualeducationshouldbetoenablecitizenstofunctionequallywellintwolanguages.

TheimplementationofbilingualeducationlikewiseappearstohavehadratherdifferentresultsatleastfortheU.S.,theSovietUnion,andCanada.5IntheU.S.,forexample,bilingualeducationprogramshavesofarhadmixedsuccess(Cordes,1985;McLaughlin,1978;U.S.DepartmentofEducation,1984).Althoughseveralprogramshavebeenextremelysuccessful,withsubstantialgainsbeingshowninschoolperformance,othershaveshownlagsinperformance,whichactuallyincreasewithtime.

CriticsofbilingualeducationintheU.S.arguethatsuchvariedresultssupporttheconclusionthatbilingualeducationitselfisnotmoreeffectivethanothertypesofremedialprogramsandthatindividualcommunitiesshouldbegivenmorefreedomtousewhatevermethodtheyfeelismosteffectiveinhelpingminoritylanguagechildren.Othersinsist,however,thattheseresultsmaybeduetoanumberoffactors,includingvariationsinthequalityofteaching,instudentbackground,andinthedegreeofcommunitysupport.

InformationaboutbilingualeducationintheSovietUnionisfarlessextensivethanthatavailablefortheU.S.However,thereareatleastsomeindicationsthatSovietprogramsforteachingRussiantononRussianminoritychildrenmaybeencounteringsimilardifficulties.Kreindler(1982)hasnotedseveralpublishedreportsofahighincidenceofschoolfailuresamongthenonRussians.

Canada,ontheotherhand,appearstohavehadenormoussuccessinimplementingbilingualeducationsuccessfullyonaverylargescale.Thechildrenwho

____________________5WefeelthatinformationavailableaboutthestateofbilingualeducationinthePRCissolimited,weprefernottomakeanyfurthercommentsaboutitrelativetotheothercountrieswhichwearecomparing.

24

emergefromtheprogramsinCanadashowacademicperformanceatleasttheequivalentofthatshownbychildrenenrolledinmonolingualclasses(Lambert&Tucker,1972;McLaughlin,1978).

Beyondtheirsocialorpoliticalsignificance,thesedifferentpoliciesundoubtedlyhaveenormouspsychologicalimpact.Lambert(1977)hasdistinguishedbetweenadditiveandsubtractiveprocessesinbilingualism.Withsubtractivebilingualism,asecondlanguagereplacesafirstlanguage.Withadditivebilingualism,theindividualachievesandmaintainsabalancedproficiencyinbothlanguages.6

Lambertsuggeststhatdifferentpsychologicaloutcomesareassociatedwitheachoftheseprocesses.Childrenwhoundergosubtractivebilingualism(forexample,whenimmigrantchildrenwereputintomonolingualEnglishlanguageclassesintheUnitedStatesuntiltheadventofbilingualeducation)areoftenpreventedfromusingwhateverlanguageskillstheyacquiredwiththefirstlanguagetolearnthesecondlanguage.Thesechildren,incomparisonwithmonolingualchildren,mayshowdeficitsinperformancebecausetheirgenerallanguageprocessingskillshavenotbeenfullydevelopedineitherlanguage.Also,theexperienceofbeingbetweentwoworlds,thatis,betweentwodifferentlanguagesandculturesand,moreover,havingtochooseoneovertheother,mayalsobeasourceofemotionalconflictforthechildwhoundergoesaprocessofsubtractivebilingualism.

Ontheotherhand,childrenwhoexperienceadditivebilingualismusuallyacquirebothlanguagesinanatmospherewhereinbothlanguagesareconsideredtobeequallysociallyrelevant.Thereisnopressuretogiveuponelanguagefortheother.Moreover,instructioninthesecondlanguageoftentakesadvantageofwhateverskillschildrenalreadypossessinthefirstlanguage.Thosechildrenwillpresumablydoaswellasmonolingualchildrenintheirgeneralscholasticperformanceandmayevenderivesomesecondarycognitiveadvantagesfrombeingproficientintwolanguages(seePalij&Homel,thisvolume).

UsingLambert'sdistinctions,wewouldclassifyCanadaasanationwhoselanguagepoliciespromoteadditivebilingualism,whereastheU.S.andtheSovietUnionarenationswhosepoliciesappeartopromotesubtractivebilingualism.Moreover,wefeelthatitisnomerecoincidencethatthepatternofsuccessofbilingualeducationorlackofit,ineachofthesecountriestendstoagreewiththepredictionsoutlinedbyLambert.Itremainstobeseenwhetherthosewhoareconcernedwithevaluatingtheeducationaloutcomesofbilingualismwillconsidertheroleofsocialcontext,evenatthelevelofgovernmentalpolicy,inthepsychologicaldevelopmentofthebilingualchild.

____________________6Lamberthasalsosuggestedasimilardistinctionforthephenomenonofbiculturalism:additivebiculturalismwouldbetheprocessthatallowsapersontobecomeknowledgeableaboutandanactiveparticipantintwocultures,subtractivebiculturalismwouldbetheprocessbywhichknowledgeofandparticipationinonecultureisexchangedforknowledgeofandparticipationinanotherculture.

25

REFERENCES

Beaujot,R.,&McQuillian,K.(1982).Growthanddualism:Thedemographicdevelopmentof Canadiansociety.Toronto:GagePress.

BilingualEducationActof1974,20U.S.C.A.880bet.seq.(Supp.1975).InUnitedStates CommissiononCivilRights(1974).AbetterchancetoLearn:Bilingualbiculturaleducation(pp.185203).(Clearinghousepublication51.)Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice.

Bilinsky,Y.(1964).TheSecondSovietrepublic:theUkraineafterWorldWarII.NewBrunswick,RutgersUniversityPress.

Brunner,E.(1981).Sovietdemographictrendsandtheethniccompositionofdraftagemales19801995(RandnoteN16541SantaMonica,CA:Rand.

Comrie,B.(1981).ThelanguagesoftheSovietUnion.London:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Cordes,C.(1985,November).StudiesdisputeBennet'sattackonbilingualism.APAMonitor,16,6.

Dreyer,J.T.(1976).China'sfortymillions.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Fishman,J.A.(1980a)."Bilingualismandbiculturalismasindividualandassocietalphenomena".JournalofMultilingualandMulticulturalDevelopment,I,315.

Fiske,E.B.(1985,September26)."Educationdepartmenttoalterbilingualefforts".TheNewYorkTimes,pp.A1,B9.

Garcia,R.(1985,October7).Morenewfederalism[Lettertotheeditor].TheNewYorkTimes,p.A30.

Glazer,N.,&Moynihan,D.P.(1970).Beyondthemeltingpot:TheNegroes,PuertoRicans, Jews,Italians,andIrishofNewYorkCity(2nded.).Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Greer,C.(1974).Dividedsociety:TheethnicexperienceinAmerica.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Grosjean,F.(1982).Lifewithtwolanguages:Anintroductiontobilingualism.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Howe,H.(1985,October7).Misguidedtamperingwithbilingualeducation[LettertotheEditor].TheNewYorkTimes,p.A30.

Isayev,M.I.(1977)NationallanguagesintheUSSR:Problemsandsolutions.Moscow:ProgressPublishers.

Kaalt,J.(1977).Abriefintroductiontothecensuslanguagedata.InP.Lamy(Ed.),LanguagemaintainenceandlanguageshiftinCanada:Newdimensionsintheuseofcensuslanguagedata

(pp.1621).Ottawa:UniversityofOttawaPress.

Keefe,J.(1985,October24)."Analternativetobilingualism".TheNewYorkTimes,p.A27.

Kreindler,I.(1982)."ThechangingstatusofRussianintheSovietUnion".International JournaloftheSociologyofLanguage,33,739.

Lambert,W.E.(1977).Theeffectsofbilingualismontheindividual:cognitiveandsocioculturalconsequences.InP.A.Hornby(Ed.)Bilingualism:Psychological,social,andeducationalimplications(pp.1527).NewYork:AcademicPress.

Lambert,W.E.,&Tucker,G.R.(1972).Bilingualeducationofchildren:TheSt.Lambert experiment.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.

LauV.Nichols,No.726520(414U.S.at566,1974).

Lehmann,W.P.(1975).LanguageandlinguisticsinthePeople'sRepublicofChina.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.

Lewis,E.G.(1972).MultilingualismintheSovietUnion.TheHague:Mouton.

Luckyj,G.S.N.(1975).Socialistincontentnationalistinform.InG.S.N.Luckyj(Ed.),Discordantvoices:ThenonRussianSovietliteratures(pp.112).Oakville,Ont.:MosaicPress.

Mathias,J.&Kennedy,T.L.(Eds.)(1980).Computers,languagereform,andlexicographyinChina:AreportbytheCETAdelegation.Seattle,WA:WashingtonStateUniversityPress.

McLaughlin,B.(1978).Secondlanguageacquisitioninchildhood.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

26

Mei,J.Y.(1984).ReadinginChina:ReportoftheU.S.readingstudyteamtothePeople's RepublicofChina.Washington,DC:NationalCommitteeonU.S.ChinaRelations.

Moser,L.J.(1985).TheChinesemosiac:ThepeoplesandprovincesofChina.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.

NarodnoekhozjajstvoSSSR19221982[ThenationaleconomyoftheUSSR19221982].(1982)Moscow:Financyistatistika.

Novak,M.(1977).Theriseoftheunmeltableethnics:Politicsandcultureintheseventies.NewYork:Macmillan.

Savchenko,F.(1970).Zaboronaukrajinstva1876[ThesuppressionoftheUkrainianactivities](HarvardSeriesinUkrainianStudiesvol.14).Munich:WilhelmFinkVerlag.

Simirenko,A.(1969).Thedevelopmentofsovietsocialscience.InA.Simirenko(Ed.),SocialthoughtintheSovietUnion.Chicago:Quadrangle.

Thernstrom,S.,Orlov,A.,&Handlin,O.(Eds.)(1980).HarvardencyclopaediaofAmericanethnicminorities.Cambridge,MA:BelnapPressofHarvardUniversity.

U.S.DepartmentofCommerce.BureauoftheCensus.(1983).1980census:Detailedpopulationcharacteristics;UnitedStatessummary,part1:sectionA:UnitedStates(PC80IDIAUSSummary).Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice.

U.S.DepartmentofEducation(1984).Theconditionofbilingualeducationinthenation,1984.Rosslyn,VA:NationalClearinghouseforBilingualEducation.

Whitaker,R.A.(1984).TheQuebeccauldron.InM.S.WhittingtonandG.Williams(Eds.),Canadianpoliticsinthe1980's(pp.3357).Toronto:Methuen.

27

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.]

28

IILANGUAGEACQUISITIONANDPROCESSING

29

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.]

30

3TheSecondLanguageLearnerintheContextoftheStudyofLanguageAcquisitionKenjiHakutaYaleUniversity

Howcanthestudyofsecondlanguagelearnersilluminatethefundamentalissuesofdevelopment?Thatisthecentralconcernofthisconference,onewhosemanyfacetedresponseswillbeslowlyrevealedthroughthepaperspresented.Iwouldliketoaddressspecificallytheproblemofgrammarintheacquisitionofasecondlanguageaftertheprimarylanguagehasbeenestablished.TheproblemcanbeputintotheperspectivepresentedbyLilaGleitmaninthe10thAnniversaryspecialissueofthejournalCognition(Gleitman,1981).Essentially,Gleitmanarguesfortheinformativevalueofthreedifferentkindsofvariationsininvestigatingthedifferentialrolesofmaturationandenvironmentindetermininglanguageacquisition.First,therearevariationsinthequalityofthelanguagesampleavailabletothechild.Theseincludethetraditionalvariablesusedintheinvestigationofmotherese.Second,therearevariationsintheinterpretiveinformationfromthelearner'sperspective(forexample,howdoesablindchildinterprettheverbsee?)Andthird,therearevariationsinthelearner'sendowment,specificallytheabilitytorepresentlanguage.Althougheveryonewouldhavetheirownpetvariationstoaddtothislist(myownbeingcrosslinguisticvariations,moretobesaidonthislater),theframeworkisveryusefulindiscussingwherethestudyofsecondlanguageacquisitionfitsinwithrespecttomajorissuesinlanguageacquisition.

Withregardtothefirstpoint,thereareprobablymorevariationsinlinguisticenvironmentsforsecondlanguage(L2)acquisitionthanforfirstlanguage(L1)acquisition.MostL2studiesareconcernedwith"naturalistic"situations,thatis,caseswherethelearnersarenotformallytutoredinthesecondlanguage.ThesestudiesbeartheclosestresemblancetotheL1inputsituation,althoughthesourceofinputcanvaryfromadultstopeers.Then,therearecaseswhere

31

childrenandadultslearnasecondlanguagethroughformallytutoredclasses.SuchvariationsinthetypesoflinguisticinputtoL2learnerscanprovidearichsourceofdataforassessingtheroleoftheinput.ItisinterestingthatmostL2studieshavebeenconcernedwithnaturalisticacquisition,becausetutoredsettingsprovideactuallyanidealsituationinwhichinputdatacanberecordedaccuratelyandexperimentallymanipulated.

Gleitman'ssecondpoint,variationsininterpretiveinformation,canbewelladdressedbythestudyofL2acquisition.AfacttooobvioustodwellonatanylengthisthatL2learnersaremorecognitivelyadvancedthantheL1learner,sothattheusualconfoundingsoflanguageandcognitivedevelopmentcanbeseparatedout.BylookingatthecorrelationsbetweenvariationsinthecourseofacquisitionofL1andL2learnersontheonehandandvariationsintheirdifferencesininterpretivecapacitiesontheother,wecanhypothesizewhatfactsobservedinL1learnersare"artifacts"ofcognitivedevelopment.Likewise,similaritiesbetweenL1andL2acquisitiondespitethevastcognitivedifferenceswouldbestrongevidenceforlanguagespecificprocesses.Leavingasidetheproblemoflanguagetransferforthemoment,onemightevenarguethatL2learnerscanrevealmoreaboutlinguisticbiasesinherentinlanguageacquisitionthanL1learners(GassArd,1980).ThisbringsustothethirdpointraisedbyGleitman,onvariationsoftheendowmentofthelearner.

Perhaps,asGleitmanputsit,"theearly'conceptuallanguage'stageisnottraversedduringlearningbytheseolderchildrenfortheyarecapableofthematurerepresentationsoflinguisticdata"(p.111).InadditiontowhetherthefirsthypothesesbytheL2learnerarerepresentedlinguisticallyratherthanconceptually,thereismuchtobelearnedfromlanguagetransfer.Inthe1950sand1960s,duringtheheydayofcontrastivelinguistics,languagetransferwasseenasevidencefortheSRviewoflanguageacquisition(seeHakutaCancino,1977,forahistoricalreview).However,morerecently,transferisseenasevidenceforthelearner'sworkinghypothesesconcerningthenatureofthetargetlanguage.Bystudyingwhattypesoflinguisticrulestransferfromthenativelanguagetothesecondlanguage,wecangarneraglimpseoftheentrenchmentofthenativelanguageinthechild.Theexistenceoftransferatteststothepsychologicalrealityofthelinguisticrulesinquestion.Anotherissueraisedwithregardtoendowmentinsecondlanguagelearnersisthatofthecriticalperiod.Doesthecapacitytorepresentlanguagedisappearwithage(Lenneberg,1967;Penfield&Roberts,1959)?WecanlookatL2learnersvaryingintheageatwhichtheybeginacquisition.

FirstIwouldliketostatetheconclusionsthatcanbedrawnfromtheliterature,andthenprovidetherelevantevidence.Generally,itisnottruethatasecondlanguagelearner,regardlessofhisherageoflearning,willperfectlymimicthedevelopmentalpatternsdisplayedbyachildlearningthenativelanguage.Infact,moresimilaritiesaretobefoundbetweenanadultanda5yearoldsecondlanguagelearnerthanbetweena5yearoldandafirstlanguagelearner.However,therearealsoalargenumberofparallelsbetweenL1andL2

32

acquisitionthatcanbeobserved.Specifically,first,therearecertainstrikingfactsaboutL2acquisitionthatcanbebestunderstoodwhencognitivedevelopmentalfactorsaretakenintoaccount.Thatistosay,someofthedifferencesbetweenL1andL2acquisitionareduetothefactthatsecondlanguagelearnersarecognitivelymorematurethantheirL1counterparts.Second,therearealsostrikingsimilaritiesbetweenL1andL2learners.Theyrevealvariationthatcanbeattributedtothebureaucraticstructureofthebeastthatalllanguagelearners,whetherL1orL2,mustmaster.Regardlessofthelearner'sendowment,certainstructuresaremoredifficultthanothers.Thismaybeduetogeneralcognitivefactors,suchasprocessingconstraintsimposedbyconfigurationalstructureormemory,oritmaybeduetomoreabstract,languagespecificfactors.Third,theextenttowhichahumanbecomesentrenchedinthenativelanguagecanbeseenintheeffectsoftransferfromthenativelanguagetothesecondlanguage.ThereisgoodevidenceforthenativelanguageofthelearnerbiasingL2acquisitionindifferentsortsofways.Andfinally,thereisgoodevidencetosuggestthatsometimeafterpubertyisaperiodwhenthecapacitytoacquireasecondlanguagedeteriorates.

Insupportoftheseconclusions,Idonotintendtoreviewalloftheavailableevidence.Rather,thediscussionisintendedtoexposethenewcomertosecondlanguageacquisitiontothekindsofdatathatcanbeexpectedfromsuchresearch.MoreextensivereviewsoftheliteraturecanbefoundinMcLaughlin(1976),HakutaandCancino(1977),Hatch(1978),SchumannandStenson(1975),OllerandRichards(1973).Thefirstsectionaddressesthequestionoftheeffectsofcognitivematurity.Thesecondsectionreviewstheeffectsoflinguisticstructurefromtheviewpointofsimilaritiesbetweenfirstandsecondlanguageacquisition.Thethirdsectionreviewsevidencefortransferfromthenativelanguage.Thefourthsectionlooksatthequestionofageeffects.Thefifthsectionproposesaframeworkforresearchfromtheviewpointoflanguageuniversals.

EFFECTSOFCOGNITIVEMATURITY

AwelldocumentedperiodinfirstlanguageacquisitionisthesocalledtwowordstageorStageIspeechinBrown's(1973)outline.Itappearsthatarelativelysmallnumberofsemanticrelationscharacterizealargeproportionofthetwowordutterancesthatcanbefoundinchildrenduringthisperiodofdevelopment.Frequentlyfoundarerelationssuchasagentaction,agentobject,attributiveentity,andsoforth.BrownpointedtothecorrespondencebetweenthesemanticrolesexpressedduringthisperiodandthesensorimotorschemesoutlinedindependentlybyPiaget,theconclusionbeingthatearlyStageIspeechisconstrainedbythecognitivecapacitiesofthechild.Conspicuouslymissingaresemanticrelationssuchasifthenconditionals,sophisticatedtemporalandaspectualrelations,andlogicalconnectives.Theobviousneededtobedone.Lightbown(1977)lookedattheacquisitionofFrenchbytwo6yearoldchildrenwhose

33

nativelanguagewasEnglish.Shesubmittedthechildren'slanguageintheirinitialstagesoflearningtothesamekindsofanalysesconductedforL1learners.Essentially,Lightbownfoundthatthesechildrenexpressedallkindsofsemanticrelationsfromtheverybeginning.Therewasnotthekindoforderlyprogressionfoundwithfirstlanguagelearners.Shefoundrelationsexpressedsuchasmanner,intensifiers,andconjunctions.Inshort,L2children,evenwhenrelativelyyoung,donotseemtogothroughidenticalstagesofdevelopmentasL1children.

Ithasbeenobserved(Hakuta,1975;Tiphine,personalcommunication)thatL2childrenusesentencecoordinationfromquiteearlyonintheirdevelopment.InL1children,thisstructureisrelativelylateinemerging(Brown,1973;Hakuta,deVilliers,&TagerFlusberg,1982;TagerFlusberg,deVilliers,&Hakuta,1982),especiallywhenusedinthecontextscorrespondingtologicalconnectives(Beilin,1976).AnillustrationoftheearlyuseofconjunctionsappearsinTable3.1.ThedataarefromafiveyearoldJapanesegirl,namedUguisu,learningEnglish(Hakuta,1975).Table3.1isfrequencydistributionofvariousconjunctionsobservedinherspeechovertime.Themonthlysamplesweremadeequivalentinlengthat200utteranceseach.Ascanbeseen,Uguisuusedconjunctionsfromquiteearlyon,inthecaseofandandbecause,fromtheveryfirstsample.Theusagewasinmostinstancesappropriatefromthetargetlanguagepointofview.

Asidefromthestructureoftheirnativelanguage,secondlanguagelearnersmostlikelyknowcertainfactsaboutthefunctionsoflanguage,suchasthatitisusedforconversations,thatconversationsinvolveturntaking,andsoforth

TABLE3.1DistributionofCoordinatingConjunctionsinUguisu'sSpeechSamples.EachMonthly

SamplingPeriodContains200Utterances.Month and but because so if

1 * 3 2 2 8 3 3 5 1 4 4 5 4 11 8 5 20 4 4 116 4 1 10 2 37 5 6 5 4 18 7 2 8 4 59 7 5 12 310 6 4 2 3 2

Note:*representsthefirstmonthwhenUguisustartedproducinghighfrequencyofutterances,whichwas6monthsafterherinitialexposuretoEnglish.(Source:Hakuta,1975)

34

(KellerCohen,1979).Thisknowledgeabouttheglobalpropertiesoflanguage,alongwithamoredevelopedmemoryspanforrememberingwholesentences,hasbeenhypothesizedtoaccountforthelargenumberofprefabricatedpatternsobservedcommonlyinsecondlanguagelearners(Hakuta,1974b;Huang,1971;WongFillmore,1976).Prefabricatedpatterns(orformulaicutterances,asWongFillmorecallsthem)arecharacterizedbylackofinternalstructure.Itappearsthatsecondlanguagelearnersmemorizeentireutteranceswithoutknowledgeofunderlyingstructure.ThisisnotunheardofinL1acquisition(Clark,1974),butitspreponderanceinL2acquisitionisstriking.Huang(1971)studieda5yearoldTaiwaneseboy,Paul,learningEnglish.HereportsanexcellentobservationofPaul'sfirstutteranceinEnglish:

OnFebruary4,onlytwodaysafterthebeginningofPaul'snurseryschoolexperience,theinvestigatorheardhim(Paul)muttering:Getoutofhere.Onthewayhomefromschoolthenextmorning,heaskedmeaboutthemeaningofthatutterance.Whentheinvestigator,insteadoftellinghimthemeaning,askedhimtorelatewhathadhappened,hesaidthataboywhowantedtogetawayhadsaidit.TheTaiwanesetranslationherenderedmeansDon'tbestayhere,whichisveryclosetoGetoutofhereinmeaning.AnincidentinthenurseryschoolthenextdayprovedPaul'scapacitynotonlytounderstandthisutterancebuttouseitappropriatelyaswell.

(PaulwasonatricyclewhileMicheleholdingontothehandlebar,keptonbotheringhim.Obviously,hewantedhertoleavehimalone.)Paul:Getoutofhere.(Michelewalkedaway,somewhatembarrassed.)(pp.1213)WongFillmore(1976),inherstudyoffiveSpanishspeakingchildrenlearningEnglish,reportedthatoverhalfofthechildren'sutterancescontainedprefabricatedforms.Shearguedthatthroughthegradualanalysisofsuchforms,laterlinguisticstructuredeveloped:"Alloftheconstitutentsoftheformulabecomefreedfromtheoriginalconstruction,[and]whatthelearnerhasleftisanabstractstructureconsistingofapatternorrulebywhichhecanconstructlikeutterances"(p.645).Itisnotclear,however,whethersuchabstractstructurecanemergethroughbruteforce.Thatisthetraditionalproblemassociatedwiththeemergenceofgrammar.Nevertheless,whatisclearisthatsecondlanguagelearnershavebeenobservedtobeginwithwholesentences,andthatifthesameformisfollowedovertime,theemergenceofstructurecanbeobserved.AstrikingexampleofthiscanbeillustratedinUguisu'suseofembedded"how"questions(Hakuta,1976).Duringthethirdmonthofobservation,Uguisumadethefollowingsetofutterances:

Iknowhowtodoit.Iknowhowtodoreaditthis.

35

Iknowhowtoreaditthis.Iknowhowtomake.Iknowhowtodrawitcat.Iknowhowtodraw(it)butterfly.Iknowhowtodrawitboy.

Thesecanbecharacterizedbyaprefabricatedpattern,Iknowhowto+VP.Thisapparentlycorrectformchangedovertimeintoformssuchasthefollowing,whichwereobservedinher15thmonth.

FirstIgottawriteitandshowyouhowdoyouspell'Debra'.IknowhowdoyouspellVino.Weonlyknowhowdoyoumakeitlikethat.Iknowhowdoyouwritethis.

Figure3.1plotstheproportionofformsusing"howto"overthetotalnumberofhowquestions,showingthatthedeclineinperformanceisagradualone.Ihavearguedelsewherethatthischangeisinfactreflectiveofherotherusesofindirectwhquestions,whereformswerefirstusedwithsubjectauxinversion(Hakuta,1976).Atanyrate,prefabricatedpatternsarequitepredominantinearlysecond

Fig.3.1.Proportionofcorrecthowembeddings(howto)overtotalhowembeddings.

Biweeklysamplesarepaired.Source:Hakuta,1976.

36

languagespeech,butitisclearthatgraduallytheyareanalyzedintomoreflexibleform.Althoughprefabricatedpatternsmaybeagoodplacetostart,andmayprovidethelinguisticdatauponwhichthelanguageacquisitionmechanismmightwork,theproblemofwhattheanalyticprocessconsistsofisamystery,justasitisinfirstlanguageacquisition.

Perhapsalongerprocessingspanwouldimplythatthesecondlanguagelearnerwouldnotshoweffectsoflength(suchaswouldbereflectedinM.L.U.upperbounds).OneindicationofthiscanbefoundinUguisu'suseoftheEnglishpossessiveinflection's.Cazden(1968)reporteddifferentialuseofthepossessiveinAdam,Eve,andSarah,dependingonwhethertheywereusedinnounnouncontexts(e.g.,Mom'spie)orinellipticcontexts(e.g.,Mom's).Forallthreechildren,therewasalargedifferenceinthepercentagetowhichthemorphemewassuppliedinobligatorycontext,withgreaterproportionbeingsuppliedinellipticcontextsthaninnounnoun.Uguisu,ontheotherhand,performedequallyinbothcontexts(seeHakuta,1976).Becausetheellipticcontextrequiresonlyonenoun,whilethenounnouncontexttwo,itispossiblethatthisdifferencereflectsthelargerprocessingspaceavailabletosecondlanguagelearners.Inturn,thisprovidesanexplanationfortheotherwiseperplexingdifferentialuseinLIchildren.Firstlanguagelearners,havingamorelimitedprocessingspan,mayomitthemorphemewhentheyhavetoprocesstwonounsforthenonellipticform,butintheellipticformmayfinditpossibleto"fitin"themorphemebecausethereisonlyonenountoprocess.Thephenomenonfoundinfirstlanguagelearners,then,maybeasimpleperformancefactor.

Finally,withregardtothemanifestationsofcognitivematurity,itisworthpointingtovocabularydevelopmentasanunderinvestigatedissue.Allindicationsarethatlexicaldevelopmentinsecondlanguagelearnersisextremelyrapid,Gillis(1975),inherstudyof3sevenyearoldJapanesechildrenlearningEnglish,reportedPPVT(PeabodyPictureVocabularyTest)increasesinmentalscoreequivalentsof6monthstoIyearinaperiodofjustImonth.SnowandHoefnagelHohle(1978)reportthatageispositivelycorrelatedwithvocabularydevelopmentinAmericanchildrenlearningDutch,suggestingthatolderlearners,withmorecognitivecapacity,pickupvocabularyfaster.Whatisneededisastudyoftheorganizationofthelexiconinbilingualchildren,apromisingareaforfutureinvestigation.

EFFECTSOFLINGUISTICSTRUCTURE:L1ANDL2SIMILARITIES

Anactiveresearchtraditioninappliedlinguisticsisonecommonlycalled"erroranalysis"(Corder,1971;Nemser,1971;Oller&Richards,1973;Schumann&Stenson,1975;Selinker,1972;Svartvik,1973).Typically,erroranalysislooksatthekindsofsystematicdeviationsfromthetargetlanguagegrammarobserved

37

inlanguagelearners,andtheerrorsareclassifiedwithrespecttotheirhypothesizedsource.Usualcategoriesforclassificationaretransfer,simplification,andovergeneralization.Transfererrorsrefertothoseerrorswhosesourceisclearlyidentifiableasthenativelanguagegrammar.Forexample,anativespeakerofSpanishsaying"Henohavehappiness"isconsideredtohaveconstructedanEnglishutterancebasedonhisnativelanguage.Simplificationusuallyreferstoerrorsofomission,particularlyinflectionsandauxiliaryverbs.Theutterance"Reaganalwayssleep"isconsideredanexampleofomission,wherethethirdpersonsingularindicativemarkerismissing.Overgeneralizationerrorsaremoststriking,andusuallyinvolvethelearner"ironingout"irregularitiescommontolanguage.Forexample,"Cooneyrightedpoorly"showsovergeneralizationoftheregularpasttensemarkeredtoirregularinstances.Simplificationandovergeneralizationareerrorswellknowntothestudentoflanguageacquisition.

Studiesemployingerroranalysistypicallyshowarelativelysmallnumberoftransfererrors,withsimplificationbeingthemostfrequent(Cohen,1975;Dulay&Burt,1973;Duskova,1969;Politzer&Ramirez,1973;Selinker,Swain,&Dumas,1975).Forexample,DulayandBurt(1974a)lookedattheerrorsproducedby179SpanishspeakingchildrenlearningEnglish.Outof513errorsthattheyconsidered,5%wereclassifiedasinterference,whereas87%wereeithersimplificationorovergeneralizationerrors.However,theclassificatorysystemdifferssomewhatfromstudytostudy,anditisdifficulttoknowhowtointerprettheresults(Hakuta&Cancino,1977).Itisnotasimplemattertoclassifyerrors.Japanesedoesnothavearticles,soshouldtheomissionoferrorsbyaJapanesechildlearningEnglishbeconsideredaninterferenceerrororasimplificationerror?Also,itisnotclearthatthedifferenttypesoferrorsarecomparable,sincetheiropportunitiesforoccurrenceareuncontrolledfor.Thesestudiesinerroranalysis,however,dosuggestcommonalitiesbetweenfirstandsecondlanguagelearnersevenwhenerrorproportionareleftaside.Similarkindsoferrorscanbefoundinbothkindoflearnersandacrosssecondlanguagelearnersofdifferentlanguagebackgrounds.

Withregardtospecificstructures,thereissomeindicationofsimilarities.ErvinTripp(1974)reportsastudyinwhichshelookedatthecomprehensionofFrenchpassivesinAmericanchildrenlearningFrench.ShefoundsystematicmisinterpretationofpassivessimilartothosereportedforFrenchL1childrenbySinclairdeZwart(1973).Interestinglyenough,thechildrenwhomisinterpretedthepassiveswereatthesametimecorrectlyinterpretingpassivesinEnglish.GassandArd(1980)reportastudyofEnglishrelativeclausecomprehensionbyadultsecondlanguagelearnersfromdifferentnativelanguagebackgrounds.Theirresults(thoughnottheirinterpretationofthedata)aresimilartothoseobtainedforthesamestructuresinEnglishL1children(forreviewsoftheEnglishL1literature,seedeVilliers,TagerFlusberg,Hakuta,&Cohen,1979;Hakuta,1981).Finally,D'AnglejanandTucker(1975)administeredtoadultL2learnersEnglishcomplementizerstructuressimilartothoseusedbyCarolChomsky(1969)forolderL1children,andobtainedsimilarresults.Thetenta

38

tivegeneralizationemergingfromthesethreestudiesseemstobethatatleastwhencomprehensionproceduresareemployedtoinvestigateparticularsyntacticstructures,L2learnersperformsimilarlytoL1learners.

EversinceBrown's(1973)reportontheorderofacquisitionof"grammaticalmorphemes"appeared,researchersinsecondlanguageacquisitionhaveconcernedthemselveswithwhetherthesameordercanbeobservedinsecondlanguagelearners(Cancino,1976;Dulay&Burt,1973,1974b;Gillis,1975;Hakuta,1974a,1976;Bailey,Madden,&Krashen,1974;LarsenFreeman,1976;Rosansky,1976).Theanswerisrelativelystraightforward:itisnot.However,therehasemergedastrikingsimilarityinorderofacquisitionacrosssecondlanguagelearners,regardlessoftheirnativelanguage.Tobesure,thereareinfluencesofthenativelanguage(tobediscussedinthenextsection),butthedifferencesseemtobeovershadowedbythesimilarities.Thisistakenasevidencethatthenativelanguageexertsminimalinfluenceontheorderofacquisitionofgrammaticalmorphemes(seeHakuta&Cancino,1977).Theinferencefromheretotheconclusionthatfirstandsecondlanguageacquisitionsaresimilarisasomewhatdifficultone,althoughitisonecommonlymade.Ontheonehand,thereisnoreasontoexpect,evenifthetwoprocesseswerethesame,thatthelinguisticproductwouldbethesame.Ontheotherhand,withoutsomeexplanationforthedifferences,oneisleftskeptical.Compoundingthisproblemisthecommonlyheldmisconceptionthat"cognitionequalssemantics."Forexample,DulayandBurt(1974b),inexplainingthedifferencefoundintheorderinfirstandsecondlanguagelearners,state:"Itseemsintuitivethatchildrenwhoareacquiringtheirfirstlanguagehavetodealwithbothsemanticandsyntacticinformation.However,six,seven,andeightyearoldchildrenlearningasecondlanguageneednotstrugglewithsemanticconceptstheyalreadyacquired,suchasconceptsofimmediatepast,possession,orprogressiveaction"(p.74).

Theproblemwiththisreasoning,asSchlesinger(1974)pointsout,isthatcognitiondoesnotequalthesemanticsofalanguage.Iftheywerethesame,therewouldhavetobenodistinctionbetweenthetwo.Thebestdemonstrationofthiscomplexrelationshipisthroughthefactthatthecognitivecategoriesfromwhichlanguagesdrawarenotuniformacrosslanguage.Forexample,althoughmanylanguagesobservethedistinctionbetweenalienableandinalienablepossessions,Englishdoesnot.Genderisanothercognitivecategorythatisexpressedtowidelyvaryingdegreesindifferentlanguages.Althoughcognitivedevelopmentmaybeapacesetterforcognitivecategoriesavailabletothelearner,thesemanticsofeachparticularlanguage(oneaspectoftheformalcomplexityofthelanguage)isoftenspecifictothatlanguage(Slobin,1973).AsIarguelater,thesemanticdistinctiondrawninEnglishbetweendefiniteandindefinitearticlespresentspreciselysuchastumblingblockforlearnersfromlanguagesthatdonotdrawuponthisdistinction.

OneexplanationforthemorphemeorderinghasbeenprovidedbyLarsenFreeman(1976),whosuggestsfrequency(althoughfrequencyitselfshouldbeexplained).LarsenFreemancorrelatedtheL2orderingswiththefrequencies

39

reportedbyBrownforthemothersofAdam,Eve,andSarah.AlthoughBrownfoundnocorrelationbetweenmaternalfrequencyandtheorderofacquisitionforthechildren,LarsenFreemanfoundrankordercorrelationsofroughly.80(dependingonthestudy).Shouldweacceptthisconclusion,thatL2learnersaresensitivetofrequencywhereasLIlearnersarenot,atleastforclosedclassitems,whatarewetoconcludeaboutthesimilaritiesanddifferences?Gleitman(1981)suggeststhatL1childrencanbeinfluencedbydifferentialuseofclosedclassitemsinmaternalinput.PerhapsthiswouldforceareexaminationoftheissueoffrequencyinL1acquisitionaswell,asa"modifiedfrequency"hypothesis.

EFFECTSOFLINGUISTICSTRUCTURE:NATIVELANGUAGETRANSFER

JustaslanguagecontactinsocietywasseenasareliableindicatorofthedynamicinteractionbetweenculturesbythegreatsociolinguistWeinreich(1953),theinterplayofthetwolinguisticsystemsintheindividualcanbeseenasreliableindicatorsofinterplaybetweenmentalstructures.Thiseffectisbestseeninlanguagetransfer.WhatbetterindicatoristhereforthepsychologicalrealityofalinguisticstructurethanthefactthatitcantransfertoanotherlanguageinthecourseofL2acquisition?

AconstantthorninthesideofthosewhowanttoargueforthesimilarityintheorderofacquisitionofgrammaticalmorphemesistheEnglisharticlesystem.Asmentionedabove,childrenlearningEnglishwithJapanese(Hakuta,1976)andKorean(Fathman,1975;Kang,1982)astheirnativelanguage(neitherofwhichhasanarticlesystem)haddifficultyinlearningtheEnglisharticlesystem.Thiscompares,forexample,toFrauenfelder's(1974)studyofEnglishspeakingchildreninaFrenchimmersionprograminCanada,inwhichhefoundthatalthoughthechildrenmademanyerrorsingenderonarticles,theyneverconfusedthedefiniteindefinitecontrast.Noticehowthisexemplifiesthedistinctionbetweensemanticdevelopmentandcognitivedevelopment.ItcertainlycannotbethattheJapaneseandKoreanchildrenwereunabletoconceptualizethedifferencebetweendefiniteandindefinitereference.Rather,itwasthatth