EDUCATING FOR BILINGUALISM - KEY THEMES AND ISSUES

Professor Colin Baker

University of Wales, Bangor

This paper was originally prepared for presentation at "Bilingualism and the Education of Deaf Children : Advances in Practice", a Conference held at the University of Leeds June 29th 1996. The full Conference Proceedings (ISBN 0900960868) are available from Pam Knight or Ruth Swanwick, School of Education, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT.

Introduction

The topics discussed in this paper provide some essential background for understanding

bilingual education for deaf children. The perspective taken is to use theory, research

and practice from hearing bilingualism and show its direct relevance to bilingualism and

bilingual education for deaf children.

The first section examines bilinguals as individuals and particularly the different ways

in which they use their two languages. The second section looks at bilinguals in groups,

communities and societies. Since bilinguals are usually located in language groups and

language communities it is important to understand them within the context of the

communities to which they belong. The third section looks at the potential advantages

of bilingualism since historically, only the problems of bilingualism have been

highlighted. One of the question posed by this paper is: ‘What are the advantages of

being a bilingual deaf person?’

The final section of this paper concentrates on bilingual education. This provides a

comparison between the deficit model and the enrichment model of bilingual education

for deaf children. Other important features of bilingual education for deaf children are

discussed including the notion of transfer between languages, the importance of deaf

people’s self-esteem and self-identity and routes to maximising their achievement in

bilingual education. The paper concludes by discussing various attributes of effective

and successful bilingual education.

1

BILINGUALS AS INDIVIDUALS

It is estimated that approximately two thirds of the world are bilingual. There are many

arguments around ‘what is a language’ and ‘what is a dialect’ and whether or not the

Creoles and Pidgins should be included or not in this calculation but nevertheless it

seems agreed that the majority of the world are bilingual or multilingual, and the

minority are monolinguals. Thus, while deaf people may consider themselves a

language minority, as bilinguals they are in the majority in the world.

One immediate problem is that this numerical majority tend to be the ones with the

minority of power. Wherever there are monolinguals (e.g. United Kingdom and the

United States) there tends to be an ascendancy of power, status and advantage. Where

language minorities exist, there tends to be disadvantage and less access to power and

prestige. Bilingual deaf people may thus readily identify with language minorities who

often have to struggle for equal access to rights, status, and opportunities. While there

are some elite bilinguals (e.g. those who speak English and French), most minority

language communities are relatively disadvantaged (e.g. Britain’s community languages,

guest workers in Germany, refugees throughout the world). It is therefore likely that a

sense of solidarity will exist between between deaf and hearing bilingual people as they

share a common purpose and mission in their struggle to raise the value and status of

their languages within a nation.

Some hearing children become bilingual from birth and this is known as simultaneous

bilingualism. These children are raised in two languages from the beginning in that one

parent may speak one language to the child and the other parent a different language.

We could say that for some hearing children bilingualism is their first language. While

for many deaf children, simultaneous bilingualism has been encouraged, sequential

bilingualism is in many cases more appropriate where the child learns Sign Language

first followed by literacy (and sometimes oracy) in another language.

The commonly held theory regarding children from language minorities is that they

should securely master one language before being introduced to a second language.

2

One example of this is where children learning Welsh are introduced to English at the

age of seven. The argument follows that if the minority language is not securely rooted,

it is always under pressure of replacement from the higher status, more media-oriented,

employment-led majority language. For children learning a minority and a majority

language simultaneously there is therefore a risk that the majority language might

displace the minority language due to its higher status, greater earning power and

identification with teenage status symbols such as pop stars and film stars. The

argument for Sign Language, the natural language of deaf people, to be introduced first

to deaf children differs slightly because competence in literacy in the second or majority

language is stressed.

It is very rare for bilinguals to have equal competence in both their languages. Full or

balanced bilingualism is an idealised concept that bears little resemblance to the reality

of bilingual people’s language use. Generally bilinguals use their two languages for

different purposes and functions, in different contexts and domains. For example, a

person may use their minority language at home, in the Mosque, Temple or Church or

with friends in the community but use English in shops, public meetings, when

watching television and enjoying other aspects of the mass media.

Theorists take this one step further and argue that for a minority language to survive it

needs to retain its separate functions and uses. If both languages are used in all the

different contexts and there is frequent code-switching, the majority language tends to

gain in strength at a cost to the minority language. When a minority language has little

or no separate use and function this results in what is known as a transition or shift to the

majority language. It is for this reason that it is usually argued that the minority

language must retain its very discreet functions (e.g. for religious purposes, community

meetings) in order to survive. For deaf people, it is also valuable that Sign Language is

used regularly with particular groups of people, for particular activities and in particular

discrete and rule-bound contexts. Where Sign Language has a genuine purpose it is

more likely to retain its status and value.

3

In the general literature on bilingualism a much debated distinction is often made

between the language required for everyday conversation and the language of the

classroom. The language of everyday conversation can be described as relatively simple

and concrete which is often supported by non-verbal communication. The language of

the classroom on the other hand tends to require more complex grammar structures,

more technical vocabulary, more abstract use of language often with far less

paralinguistic support.

The importance of this distinction is that there is a danger that a teacher who finds a

child has conversational competence in a language may then assume that the child is

ready to receive their full education through that language. For example, a deaf person

who uses Sign Language as a preferred language and is learning English as a second

language may be able to understand a conversational level of spoken English but may

not have the competence in English to cope with the more advanced language of the

classroom. This is one reason why children from language minorities tend to under-

achieve. These children, for example in both the United Kingdom and the United States,

are likely to be trying to learn through the medium of English without being equipped

with the English language skills they need to cope with the demands of the curriculum.

This can result in school failure from an early age, with failure breeding failure, rather

than success breeding success. It is often argued that while it takes about two years to

acquire conversational skills, it takes five to seven years or more to acquire a second

language to a level sufficient to cope with the full curriculum. This has recently been

validated by much-publicised research in the United States (Collier, 1995; Thomas and

Collier, 1995).

Having competence in a language (e.g. in Sign Language) does not mean that the

language will thrive or even survive within an individual. People need to have positive

attitudes to maintaining their languages and positive attitudes regarding the value and

purpose of their language. It is insufficient to teach Sign Language to deaf children, and

for them to acquire competency in using Sign Language, unless such children are

rewarded and reinforced for their ability to use Sign Language. The value of using Sign

Language within the deaf community and in education will help a deaf child maintain a

4

positive attitude to Sign Language as their natural language. The nature and importance

of language attitudes is further explored in Baker (1992).

BILINGUALS IN COMMUNITIES AND SOCIETY

Bilinguals tend not to exist independently or separately but in groups and language

communities. Thus it is insufficient to analyse bilinguals solely from an individual or

psychological viewpoint. The features of bilinguals when they belong to groups and

communities is an essential background to bilingual education.

Language communities are often strong where they claim a territorial principle. The

Welsh, for example, claim a right to use their heritage language because for many

centuries it has been the language of the land. The Welsh, as do the Catalans, Basques,

Bretons and Gaelic speakers in Scotland, all claim a human right to use their language in

education, law courts, mass media and elsewhere as the language ‘belongs’ to the

territory. Unfortunately although this argument works in the favour of such Celtic

groups it works against in-migrants, guest workers, refugees and deaf people. The Celtic

claim to use their minority languages because they have done so in a bounded territory

over many centuries. For the Punjabis of the United Kingdom the basis of their claims to

use their language has to rest on what is known as the ‘personality principle’.

The personality principle emphasises the fact that each language and attendant culture

has particular historic and modern features that require protection, preservation and

conservation. Each language and culture has its own personality and if any language

dies, the world becomes poorer. Thus, Sign Language should be promoted, not only as

the natural language of deaf people, but also because of its history, heritage and culture

and its exotic attraction that contibutes to a more colourful language garden of the

world. Sign Language encompasses and creates the culture, personality, vitality and

shared understandings of the deaf community and therefore needs preservation and

conservation, production and reproduction.

5

Where bilinguals exist in communities and society, varying degrees of a subtractive or

an additive ethos are likely to exist. In a subtractive situation, particularly where there is

political, social and economic assimilation in society, the majority language community

expect the minority language to wither. This is reflected in some approaches to the

education of bilingual children where the aim is to replace the home or first language of

the child with the majority language of the wider society.

Socialization forces in society (e.g. mass media) may also place pressure on language

minority communities to engage in a transition towards majority language and culture.

The alternative to this is an additive situation where having two languages and two

cultures is seen as advantageous for everyone, in that one language does not displace or

replace another; instead both languages add to the variety, vitality and colour of society

in general.

Unfortunately, minority languages have often been seen as a problem particularly by

majority language users. Such problems range from supposed cognitive deficits

resulting from owning two languages, to concerns of the language majority that minority

language users will not integrate or assimilate and form a well-integrated whole. A

separate language community may be regarded as a problem because they are seen to

have alternative power structures, providing a challenge to those with power and status,

and a threat to those who have control over economic resources.

Language majorities usually expect language minorities to assimilate in terms of culture

and structure, but not economically. In the United States, for example, the many

millions of in-migrants over many decades have been expected to become good

Americans, loyal to the President and the flag, becoming culturally integrated,

linguistically monolingual in English with the aim of making an easily manageable,

obedient and unified society. However, such language minorities in the United States

have rarely been allowed equal access to economic rewards and advantages. Language

minorities are often expected to assimilate, integrate and to be easily governable, but

without equal access to economic rewards. A similar pattern can be found among deaf

communities, where pressure to learn English, to learn through English and to integrate

6

into the mainstream schooling can superficially have well-meaning intentions. Those in

power may, in reality, be afraid of minority groups with power, their own culture and

mission. Such minority groups may be seen as splinter sections of society, rivaling

central power structures, and expressing a volatile diversity that is perceived as not easy

to contain. However, language minority groups do have some advantages over

monolinguals. These will now be considered.

THE POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES OF BILINGUALISM

One potential advantage of bilingualism is that children can access two or more worlds

of experience. While most of us have different sub-cultures, bilingual deaf people have

the opportunity to access both the sub-cultures of the deaf community and a selection of

the sub-cultures of the hearing community. This wider perspective and breadth of

understanding can result in greater tolerance and a less ethnocentric outlook because of

the opportunity for multiple understandings that is provided. For example, consider a

child who has the term ‘folk dancing’ in one language and the equivalent or near

equivalent in another language. The meanings of folk dancing in each language will not

be the same. Folk dancing can have different connotations, emotions, pictures and

associations in different languages. This simple example illustrates the advantage in

terms breadth of experience that bilingual and bicultural individuals potentially have

over monolinguals.

Bilingual people are also advantaged because ability to use two languages enables them

to comminicate with a wider number and variety of people whether that be within the

community, across the United Kingdom or internationally.

When two languages are relatively well-developed within an individual he or she is

likely to experience thinking or cognitive advantages. For example, a child who can

cope with the demands of the curriculum in either language is likely to be able to able to

separate meanings from the words themselves, to think more creatively and divergently

7

and to be more sensitive to communication between people. Further explanation and

discussion of these points can be found in Baker (1996).

Bilingual individuals are further advantaged if their minority language is valued in terms

of their self-esteem and sense of social identity. A child whose home language is a

minority language but who finds in school that the language is disparaged by teachers by

its non-use in the curriculum, may suffer in terms of self-esteem. If children’s first

language is rejected by the school, by implication so are their parents, their extended

family, their community and their very sense of Self. For those whose first language is

celebrated in school, their self-esteem may be raised and strengthened. Where there is

denial of Sign Language as the natural language of deaf people, then there can be a

diminution of self-esteem and self-identity. When there is acceptance and celebration of

Sign Language as the first language of deaf people, then self-esteem and self-identity

may be supported, secured and strengthened leading to positive outcomes in terms of

achievement in the school and beyond. This overview of the individual and the societal

provides the background for a more in-depth discussion of bilingual education.

BILINGUAL EDUCATION

1. The Deficit Model

Approaches to bilingual education can be broadly grouped into two main models (for a

more detailed overview see Baker, 1996) One significant model is known as the ‘deficit

model’. In this type of model children are not allowed to use their home language in

school at all or they allowed to use it only for the first one or two years. Common to

many of the approaches within this defict model is the goal of ‘submersing’ the children

in the majority language of the school. Alternatively a transitional approach may be

8

adopted where children are allowed to splash around in their home language for two or

three years, but with the long-term aim of that language being replaced by the majority

language. In such mainstream education, children are expected to learn (sooner or later)

solely through the majority language.

The argument for the deficit model is that majority language competence is essential for

equal access to employment, and to the economic and social advantages of the majority

language society. This is more often than not underpinned by the drive for the

assimilation and integration of minorities into mainstream society. This deficit model

tends to result in a lowering of achievement, not just initially, but throughout school. In

this deficit model of education, the child’s preferred language is rejected, and therefore,

the child may also feel rejected. The child is not allowed to use his or her linguistic and

intellectual resources when moving from home to school. Therefore, the school either

starts at too high a level so that the child cannot understand, or the child is taught

competence in the majority language. Hence, the school may not increase children’s

competence and confidence by building upon their intellectual foundation at the point of

transition from home to school.

The Deficit Model of Education for Deaf Children

The approach to the education of deaf children which could be described as a ‘deficit

model’ of education is that which focuses solely on developing any residual hearing

(with the assistance of hearing aids) to accentuate the development of speech reading

skills and speech production. Up until the 1970’s, this approach dominated the

education of deaf people in North America and Europe. Such an approach is based on

the following beliefs:

· that deaf children should integrate into mainstream society;

· that the curriculum should not be taught through Sign Language but through the

majority spoken language;

9

· that Sign Language is insufficient as a language to enable full intellectual

development;

· that Sign Language is only useful as a temporary crutch to support the acquisition of

the majority spoken language;

· that achievement in the curriculum requires oracy and literacy in the majority

language (e.g. English);

· that achievement and success can only be seen in terms of proficiency in the majority

and measured against the hearing norm.

2. The Enrichment Model

In an enrichment model of bilingual education, children are allowed to use their

minority language for as long as practically possible. While the majority language may

be introduced around the age of seven or eight (and therefore bilingualism is

encouraged), the child retains their minority language, works through that minority

language and generally tends to achieve success. The reasons for the child achieving

success may be due to the fact that the school accepts and builds upon the linguistic and

intellectual resources the child owns when moving from home to school. Also and

importantly, ideas, concepts, knowledge developed in the first language transfer easily to

the second language. For example, if a child is taught to use a computer in one

language, as long as a second language is sufficiently developed, such understanding is

‘available’ in the second language. Decoding skills and other strategies involved in

learning to read are also transferable from one language to another.

Using the child’s first or preferred language can be the most efficient means of initially

acquiring curriculum concepts, understanding and knowledge. For example, recent

research from the United States (Collier, 1995) has shown that children who learn

through their first (minority) language for as long as possible tend to have not only

improved final achievement, but also their English language skills tend to develop to a

10

higher level than those who were taught in submersion or transitional bilingual

education.

Minority language education gives a child pride and confidence in their first or natural

language (e.g. Sign Language) and in who they are (e.g. identity as a deaf person).

Language minority schools tend to boost children’s self-esteem and self-identity by

celebrating rather than disparaging their minority language and culture. The children’s

performance is usually raised as a result of their improved self-esteem and experience of

learning through their first or natural language.

International research and scholarly writings suggest that bilingual education is more

effective and more successful when the following occurs:

· There is an early emphasis on the minority language with a child becoming bilingual

later.

· There are language boundaries between the two languages in school particularly so

that the majority language never replaces or displaces the minority language.

· There is a partnership with parents both inside and outside the school, where parents

are included in the classroom bringing in their ‘funds of knowledge’, and supporting

their children outside school.

· Successful initiatives, often at grass roots level, raise the profile of bilingual

education, thus capturing the enthusiasm and commitment of teachers and parents

alike.

· There is an active participative culture to accompany the minority language. It is

insufficient to teach a child a language if environments outside school for the use of

that language do not exist. For example, minority languages often argue for the

representation of their language in the mass media. Research has shown that this does

not provide the active participatory culture required for a language to live within an

11

individual. Within a community, there needs to be plenty of opportunities for

minority language speakers to use their language.

•1 The minority language is not only connected with out-of-school culture, and after-

work culture, but also has an economic or employment dimension attached. If a

minority language is only seen as valuable for leisure and pleasure, there is a danger

of it being marginalised and not fully integrated into work institutions, economic life

and the labour market. Language production and reproduction needs to occur in

education, the family and the community, but gathers more momentum and strength

when it is part of that unavoidable dimension of life concerned with personal and

family economics and increased affluence.

The Enrichment Model of Bilingual Education for Deaf Children

An enrichment bilingual education model for deaf children centres on ten basic

principles.

1. Natural Sign Language should be regarded as the preferred or primary language

of all deaf children

2. Sign Language should be used to teach curriculum subjects such as Science,

Humanities, Social Studies and Mathematics.

3. Sign Language can be used to teach English (or another majority language) as a

second language where there is an emphasis on literacy as well as on oral/aural

skills.

4. The culture and language of the deaf community are recognised and validated

enabling deaf children to realize their natural identity. This approach tends to be

favored by most but not all the deaf community although not all the politicians

and educational professionals who formulate policy and provision.

12

This model of bilingual education for deaf children is based on the research and

arguments for an enrichment form of bilingual education for hearing children the

central tenets of which include:

· building on a child’s existing linguistic and intellectual resources

· concepts and knowledge developed in the first language transfer easily to

the second language

· the use of children’s heritage language which fosters their sense of pride

and confidence in their culture and community

· the boosting of children’s self-esteem and self-identity without threat

when the use of their first language is positively encouraged

· the raising of school performance and curriculum attainment when the

first language is celebrated rather than devalued.

· the low achievement of minority language pupils and deaf pupils which

needs to be addressed by the promotion of enrichment forms (or ‘strong

forms’) of bilingual education.

5. Deaf children may not always acquire a spoken language easily or quickly

because they have limited hearing abilities. If the curriculum is transmitted in

the spoken language, they are being expected to learn the content of the

curriculum using a level of language not yet acquired. This is analogous to

minority language children being expected to operate in submersion education in

the language of the majority.

6. The learning of a Sign Language should begin as early as possible, ideally soon

after birth. Current thinking suggests that early exposure to Sign Language is

appropriate for all deaf children. This gives the deaf child the opportunity to

13

develop age-appropriate competence in a first language (i.e. Sign Language).

Without the development of language, a child cannot form concepts or develop

cognitive skills, nor can a child learn social and communicative skills through

interaction with others.

If a deaf child has had the opportunity to develop Sign Language competence

during the preschool years, that child is likely to arrive in school ready to cope

with the curriculum and better able to socialise with others. Children who have

had early access to Sign Language appear to progress better in school. It is

important to avoid language delay in deaf children, as has been found to occur

with approaches that focus solely on the acquisition of oral and aural skills.

Curriculum achievement will suffer if there is language delay.

Where deaf children arrive in school with very little grasp of either Sign

Language or spoken language, the priority must be on the development of Sign

Language skills. Children must be able to think and conceptualize before they

can learn.

8. Nine out of ten deaf children are born to hearing parents, but with many parents

being increasingly willing to learn and use Sign Language, the first language of

such deaf children can be Sign Language. It is important that hearing parents

receive adequate support from Sign Language teachers and that there is good

preschool provision for deaf children. Parents of deaf children need be informed

about bilingual education and to have a knowledge and understanding of deaf

communities. To enhance their child’s curriculum achievement, parents should

expect Sign Language to be the medium of curriculum delivery with a emphasis

on the development of the child’s literacy skills in the majority language.

Parents of deaf children need considerable emotional support, information and

guidance to help their children become bilingual. A partnership between school

and parents, and between school and community must exist in order that the

cognitive, linguistic, social and emotional development of deaf children can be

14

facilitated. While there is a considerable debate about the integration of deaf

children into a hearing society, (and their first loyalty being to the deaf

community), hearing parents of deaf children need appropriate support.

9. Current challenges faced by teachers of deaf children include the limited supply

of appropriately trained staff, Sign Language teaching resources (e.g. signed

stories on video) and in-service education and certification and funding. These

are practical problems to be overcome rather than insurmountable problems of

principles.

10. In a bilingual programme for deaf pupils team teaching may be an essential part

of the approach. The deaf teacher may be a natural model for the acquisition of

Sign Language with a hearing teacher acting as a model for the acquisition of

proficiency in a majority language such as English or French. Ideally, both

teachers should be bilingual models, being able to communicate in both Sign

Language and spoken or written English. Also, both teachers in the team should

have a knowledge of the shared culture of deaf people as well as an

understanding of the diversity that exists among deaf children and adults.

Conclusion

This paper has suggested that there are many similarities between deaf and hearing

bilingual people. Many of the arguments for retaining a minority language as a child’s

first language and for a ‘strong’ form of bilingual education for such children, also hold

for deaf children. The argument that children from language minorities should become

bicultural and culturally pluralistic also applies to bilingual deaf people.

Language minorities are often the poor, low status, low power relations of majority

language speakers and so it follows that bilingual deaf people are often the poor relations

of spoken language minority bilinguals. This is particularly emphasised when deaf

people come from language minority communities themselves. A Latino deaf person in

the U.S., a deaf Turkish person in Germany and a deaf Bengali person in the U.K. are

15

all examples of individuals who are a minority within a minority. They are often the

doubly underprivileged and the doubly despised. Where being a member of a language

minority is joined by being deaf, disempowerment, low status, discrimination and low

self esteem may be compounded. Given that many groups of bilinguals are under

privileged and even more so deaf bilingual people we should make social and

educational action our highest priority.

References:

BAKER, C., (1992), Attitudes and Language, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

BAKER, C., (1995), Parents’ and Teachers’ Guide to Bilingualism. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

BAKER, C., (1996), Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. (Second

Edition). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

COLLIER, V.P., (1995), Acquiring a Second Language for School. Directions in

Language and Education (National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education), Volume 1,

No. 4, Fall 1995, pages 1 - 8.

MAHSHIE, S. N., (1995), Educating Deaf Children Bilingually. Washington, DC:

Gallaudet University.

16

THOMAS, W.P., & COLLIER, V.P., (1995), Language Minority Student Achievement

and Program Effectiveness. Research Summary. Fairfax, Virginia: George Mason

University.

17