What is Bilingualism?

It is not easy to formulate a generally accepted definition of bilingualism. Bilingualism

means different things to different people. Bloomfield (1933:56) defined bilingualism as
'native-like control of two languages'. However, this definition excludes many people who
speak more than one language but do not have 'native- like' control of one or both of their
languages. A large number of people who use two languages regularly may not have
'native-like' control of one of their languages. It is clear that Bloomfield's definition of
bilingualism needs to be modified if it is to reflect accurately the reality of people's ability to
use languages.
The existence of large numbers of people who speak more than one language but who
do not exhibit native-like control in both languages, raises the question of how proficient a
person must be to be classed as bilingual. Haugen (1953:7) suggests that bilingualism
begins 'at the point where a speaker of one language can produce complete, meaningful
utterances in the other language'. Diebold (1961) has even suggested that bilingualism
has commenced when a person begins to understand utterancesin a second language,
but is unable to produce utterances.
Bilingualism may be defined as having some ability to use two (or even more)
languages. There can, therefore, be degrees of bilinguality at one extreme there are those
people who have native-like control over two languages and at the other extreme are
those people who havejust begun to acquire a second language.
Degrees of bilingualism can be assessed in the individual's command of the four skills
of listening comprehension, speaking, reading comprehension and writing in each
language. Some children in immigrant communities, for example, have all four skills only in
the official language of their country of residence while in their parents' language they have
only the oral skills of listening comprehension and speaking. In addition, people who are
bilingual in all four skills can have different levels of skill in each language. For example, a
Vietnamese speaking child educated in English may have a better command of written
English than of written Vietnamese, even if the child's spoken Vietnamese is better than
his/her spoken English. Groajean (1982) points out that we need to consider a holistic view
of bilingualism. The linguistic abilities of bilinguals have often been compared to those of
monolingual speakers of the languages concerned. The bilingual, however, should not be
considered as the sum total of two complete or incomplete monolinguals. The presence of
two languages and their interaction in the bilingual produces a different but complete
language system which responds to the individual's needs to communicate using one or
other language or, in some settings, a mixture of both languages.

How common is bilingualism?

Bilingualism is present in most countries throughout the world, in all classes of society
and in all age groups. However, the importance of bilingualism in the world is not widely
recognized, particularly in countries which view themselves as monolingual. Lewis (1978)
stated that 'bilingualism has been and is nearer to the normal situation than most people
are willing to believe'.
In some border areas between two language groups, economic and social factors lead
many people to use more than one language on a regular basis. Thus, in Europe people
who live near in a country like Belgium may live in a Flemish speaking area and work in a
French speaking area. For people such as these, there is a practical need to speak both
the language of the region in which they live and the region in which they work.
The pattern of bilingualism is different in different societies. For example countries with
indigenous linguistic minorities may be bilingual, but bilingualism is normal only in the
minority community. Thus native speakers of Welsh in Wales normally speak both Welsh
and English and native speakers of Ainu in Japan usually speak Japanese as well as Ainu.
However, few native speakers of English speak Welsh and few native speakers of
Japanese speak Ainu. In some countries, bilingualism is more widespread through out the
population. In Paraguay, for example most people speak both Spanish and Guarani. In
countries where many different languages are in contact, most people speak one or two of
their neighbours' languages and often a lingua franca as well. Thus, in Papua New Guinea
many people living in rural areas speak two or more languages often including a pidgin,
such as Tok Pisin or Hiri Motu, which is used for communicating with people over a wider
area.
Immigration can lead to the establishment of bilingual communities in the host country.
Immigrants coming from countries speaking a language different from that of the country in
which they settle need to acquire the language of their host country and so they become
bilingual speaking both their own language and the language of the host country. These
people may in turn transmit both languages to their children and ensure the survival of the
bilingual community. This is a typical pattern of bilingualism in Australia. According to the
1986 census, 13.6% of Australians over the age of five speak a language other than
English at home (Clyne 1988).

Types of bilingualism
The study of bilingualism has tended to develop dichotomies. Among the more
commonly used dichotomies are the distinctions between compound and co-ordinate
bilingualism (Weinreich 1953), simultaneous and successive bilingualism (McLaughlin
1984), additive and subtractive bilingualism (Lambert 1975), elite and folk bilingualism
(Skutnabb-Kangas 1981). These distinctions have had an important function in drawing
attention to various aspects of bilingualism but at the same time they represent different
approaches to the question of bilingualism.

Co-ordinate and compound bilingualism

Ervin and Osgood (1954) distinguished between compound and co-ordinate bilingualism
according to differences in cognitive functioning. Compound bilingualism involves two sets
of linguistic signs which become associated with a single set of meanings. Coordinate
bilingualism involves a set of translation equivalents in the two languages which
correspond to two different sets of representations (See Figure 1.1). The distinction
between these two types of bilingualism involves a difference in cognitive organization of
linguistic material in the brain it does not in itself indicate a difference in competence. Co-
ordinate bilingualism tends to be developed through an experience of different contexts in
which the two languages are rarely interchanged, whereas compound bilingualism tends to
be developed through contexts in which the two languages are rarely interchanged,
whereas compound bilingualism tends to be developed through contexts such as formal
language l earn ingin schoolor continual switching from one language to another.

Figure 1 Schematic representation of the compound co-ordinate distinction. Adapted from Ervin & Osgood
(1954)

Simultaneous and successive bilingualism

McLaughlin (1984) maintains that when a child learns two languages simultaneously it is
inappropriate to talk about the child's first and second languages. Both languages are in
effect first languages, although one may dominate in certain situations or with certain
people. For McLauglin, simultaneous bilingualism could occur at any age less than a cut-
off age of three years. Therefore, a 2 year old Portuguese speaking child who moves to
Australia and begins to acquire English would be considered to be acquiring both
languages simultaneously. McLauglin felt that below the age of three, the child's first
language was not yet established but that after the age of three the child has had a
considerable head start in acquiring one language and is establishing first language
patterns. It can no longerbe considered that the child is acquiring both languages
simultaneously.
When a language is acquired after the first language is established, McLaughlin talks of
successive acquisition. In this case, the first and second languages can be clearly
differentiated and the added language is learnedas a second language. Thus, a Tagalog
speaking child who moves to Australia from the Philippines at the age of four and a half will
already have acquired a large amount of Tagalog as a first language, when this child is
exposed to English s/he will begin learning itas a second language.
Simultaneous acquisition of two languages is not necessarily superior to successive
acquisition and both patterns ofacquisition can lead to bilingual competence. A child's
bilingual ability does not so much depend on how early a language is introduced as on
other factors such as the relative prestige of the languages, cultural factors and
opportunities foruse. For example, a child who acquires two languages simultaneously
may lose one ofthose languages when contact with that language is lost whereas a child
who has acquired two language successively but has continued contact with both
languages may become a balanced bilingual.

Additive and subtractive bilingualism

Lambert (1975, 1977) drew attention to the close association between bilingualism and
the social psychological mechanisms involved in language behaviour. In particular, the
relative social status of each of the bilingual person's languages and the person's
perception of the difference in status has an important function in the development of
bilingualism. Lambert distinguishes two types of bilingualism additive bilingualism and
subtractive bilingualism.
Additive bilingualism develops when both languages and the culture associated with
them bring complementary positive elements to the child's overall development.
Subtractive bilingualism, however, develops when the two languages are competing
rather than complementary. Such competition occurs when the minority language is being
replaced by the more dominant and prestigious language of the majority group. Lambert
(1977:19) states that the level of bilingualism achieved will 'reflect some stage in the
subtraction of the ethnic language and the associated culture, and their replacement with
another'. Subtractive bilingualism results, for example, when a child is educated in the
more prestigious language without appropriate support for his/her home language in the
education programme.

Elite and folk bilingualism

Skutnabb-Kangas (1981) uses a distinction between elite bilinguals, who acquired their
second language through formal education with some opportunity to use the language
naturally and folk bilinguals who acquired their second language through practical contact
with speakers of that language.
Elite bilinguals typically become bilingual through a free choice to learn a language. Elite
bilingualism has always been highly valued and considered a form of cultural enrichment
and a mark of learning and intelligence. The risk associated with failing to learn the second
language is small and is equal to the consequences of failing in any other area of
curriculum. Students who do not excel in language studies are usually able to discontinue
the area of study and concentrate their attention on other subject areas.
Folk bilingualism, however, has frequently been stigmatized and has often been
associated with educational controversies related to the integration of minority children into
thew majority society. It is not, however, the type of bilingualism or the way a language is
acquired that are the cause of problems in education for folk bilingual children but rather a
combination of social and other factors.
Folk bilinguals are typically members of linguistic minority groups and are subject to
strong external pressure to learn the dominant language. As such, they are forced by
circumstances to become bilingual in their own language and in the dominant language.
Their home language is often unvalued in the wider community and usually has limited or
no official status. Failure to acquire the dominant language adequately can have drastic
repercussions for these children. A child whose second language skills are limited is
usually excluded from further educational opportunities and will be unable to compete in
the labour market with children who are fluent in the dominant language. Such a child will
face restrictions on his/her access to the life of the larger community.
Folk bilinguals may also suffer difficulties due to the education system's lack of support
for speakers ofnon-dominant languages. These children frequently enter classestaught in
a language they do not speak, and often find themselves in the same class as native
speakers of the dominant language. Moreover, for many speakers of minority languages,
general educational prospects for successful learning and for their acquisition of the
dominant language are dependent to some extent on the continued development of their
first language and of the conceptual basis they have already gained. lithe education
system does not assist children in this development, the result can be severe educational
difficulties for these children.

Balanced bilingualism
Balanced bilingualism has a range of meanings for different writers. For Haugen (1973)
a balanced bilingual is an individual who has native-like competence in both languages.
More frequently, however, the term is usedto refer to an individual who has roughly equal
ability in both languages. This would mean that someone whose performance was
imperfect in both languages would still be a balanced bilingual if his/her skills in each
language were about the same.
Most bilinguals are usually dominant in one language or the other, although they may
not be dominant in the same language in all areas as the example of the Vietnamese
speaking child given above indicates. Often, there are domains of language use in which
people use only one of their two languages. For example, an Arabic-English bilingual in
Australia may use only English at work or at school, but would normally use Arabic at
home or with friends. As a result, this person would have a more developed vocabulary for
work and school in English and a more developed vocabulary for domestic activities in
Arabic. This person could be better able to talk about work in English and better able to
talk about cooking in Arabic.

Is bilingualism an advantage or a disadvantage?

The question of the advantage or disadvantage ofbilingualism, particularly for children,
has been subject to much controversy.
Much early writing on bilingualism has concentrated on what were believed to be the
detrimental effects of bilingualism. For example, Jespersen (1922) maintained that the
bilingual child hardly learns either language as well as such a child would have learned a
single language. Moreover, he claims that theintellectual effort needed to master two
languages diminishes the child's ability to learn other things.
These early studies were largely based on the intuitions of the writers concerned, but
experimental studies were also produced which seemed to bear out such opinions. Saer
(1923) surveyed 1,400 Welsh school children in five rural and two urban schools and
concluded that bilingualism led to lower intelligence. However, Saer failed to consider
other factors which may have contributed to his results, such as possible differences in
social class between bilingual and monolingual students. In fact, Saer found that lower
scores in intelligence tests applied only for children in rural schools and that bilingual
students in urban schools scored slightly better on his tests than monolinguals.
It appears that in Saer's study, urban bilinguals had more contact with the second
language, English, both in school and outside school than did their rural. counterparts. The
urban students would, therefore, be more balanced bilinguals than the rural students and
could perform at a level similar to monolingual students on verbal intelligence tests.
In 1962 Peal and Lambert published the results of a study in which they aimed to
overcome the flaws in research design which characterized earlier studies. Peal and
Lambert surveyed l0year old children in urban public schoos in Montreal, Canada. These
children were assessed on a range of cognitive, affective, and language use variables and
profiles were developed which equated groups for factors such socio-economic group,
parental education. Controlled groups of monolinguals and balanced bilinguals were then
compared and the bilinguals were found to be significantly ahead of their monolingual
counterparts in verbal and non-verbal reasoning, divergent thinking and subject matter
attainment. Bilingual ten year olds also tended to be further advanced in the school system
than monolingual ten year olds.
These findings have since been confirmed by a number of studies which have shown
bilinguals to be more creative, cognitively more flexible and to perform betteron tests of
verbal and nonverbal intelligence.
In an important follow up study to Peal and Lambert (1962), Lambert and nicker (1972)
evaluated monolingual English speaking children enrolled in French language immersion
classes in Canada and compared their findings with matched control groups of
monolingual English speaking children instructed in English and monolingual French
speaking children instructed in French. The children in the three groups were matched in
kindergarten for social class variables and non-verbal intelligence and were evaluated for
five consecutive years. At the end of this period, testing the three groups revealed the
following:
1. Children in the immersion class did not suffer any impairment in their English
language ability as a result of instruction in a second language and performed at the same
level as monolingual English speaking children educated in English.
2. The immersion group matched the French speaking group in their performance in
areas such as vocabulary, listening comprehension and knowledge of French concepts.
They were, however, poorer at oral expression, in rythm, intonation and overall expression
when retelling short stories in French, but these factors improved when they were telling
an original story in French. Overall, the immersion children had quite similar abilities to
those of the French control group.
3. The performance of the immersion class in non-language subjects such as
mathematics which were taught in French was at the same level as the French speaking
group.
The findings of studies such as Lambert and Peal (1962) and Lambert and Tucker
(1972) have prompted much research focussed on whether bilingual children have a
greater ability to manipulate language or have a greater awareness of language than
monolingual children. Ianco-Worrall (1972) conducted two experiments comparing South
African bilingual English - Afrikaaner children with monolingual English or Afrikaaner
speakers. In one of these experiments children were given a 'standard' word word followed
by two 'choice' words. One of the choice words was phonetically related to the 'standard'
word the other was semantically related. Bilingual children chose the semantic equivalent
more frequently than monolingual children. In the other experiment a word substitution
task was used to determine the extent to which children would accept the interchange of
names for objects. These experiments revealed that bilingual children were aware of the
abitrary nature of names at an earlier age than monolingual children and that bilingual
children were more attentive to the semantic relationship between words than were
monolingual children who focussed more on phonemic relationships.
Cummins and Mulcahy (1978) gave a test similar to Ianco- Worrall's to students in a
bilingual Ukranian-English programme.
They chose three groups: bilingual students who spoke Ukranian at home and were
judged to be fluent in both languages, students who spoke little Ukranian at home and who
were judged to be learners of that language and monolingual English speakers. The
results of this test did not confirm lanco-Worrall's finding that bilingual children were more
semantically oriented than monolingual children. In fact, they found that, at Grade 1 level,
the children learning Ukranian as a second language were considerably more
phonemically oriented than monolinguals. This difference was found to disappear at the
Grade 3 level.
It is necessary, therefore, to account for the differences in findings between Ianco-
Worrall(1972) and Cummins and Mulcahy (1978). It appears that at the initial stages
ofexposure to a second language phonemic features of words are more salient than
semantic features, but as competence increases in the second language, phonetic
discrimination becomes less of a problem and syntactic and semantic analysis is more
necessary for understanding linguistic input. lanco-Worrall's sample had been exposed to
both English and Afrikaans in the home from an early age and appear to have advanced
beyond the stage where phonetic discrimination was necessary and were concentrating
more on semantic features. Cummins and Mulcahy's students, and in particular the
second language learners, had not yet reached the same stage in their language
development and were more dependant on phonetic information.
Research into bilingualism has also looked for evidence that bilingual children also show
cognitive advantages over monolingual children in areas other than metalinguistic
awareness. Landry (1974) reported cognitive enrichment as the outcome ofelementary
school language programmes in the United States. In this study, children were tested in
first, fourth and sixth grades using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking and were tested
for figural and verbal flexibility, fluency and originality. Sixth grade bilingual children were
found to perform significantly better on all tests than monoliongua Is, but the effect was
less for fourth grade children and non - existent for first grade children.
Cummins and Gulutsan (1974) tested bilingual and monolingual children on aspects of
memory, reasoning and divergent thinking. They found that bilinguals demonstrated
greater verbal ability, performed better on measures of concept formation and scored
higher on tests of verbal originality than did monolinguals. Monolinguals performed better
than bilinguals when recalling abstract words, but otherwise there was no difference in
ability to perform memory tasks.
In another study, Kessler and Quinn ( 1987) compared bilingual and monolingual eleven
year-olds who were involved in an inquiry-based science program during which they
learned to formulate scientific hypotheses in a problem-solving setting. Bilinguals were
found to perform better than monolinguals in both the quality of hypotheses. This was
taken as an indication of enhanced cognitive creativity due to the bilingual language
proficiency. Kessler & Quinn (1987) found that bilingual children demonstrated a much
higher level of convergent thinking by making greater use of metaphors. Whereas
divergent thinking entails generating a large number of possible solutions to a problem,
convergent thinking involves focussing in on disparate objects and ideas, relating them to
each other.
Research into bilingualism has also demonstrated social benefits which are connected
to bilingualism. Lambert andTucker (1972) indicate that children who learn a second
language at school experience positive social development. These children tend to adopt a
dual reference group maintaining anchors to the primary reference group of their original
language and culture and at the same time developing anchors in the secondary reference
group of the new language and culture. Children who learn a second language can,
therefore, add to their existing social repertoire without compromising their existingsocial
integration. Genesee (1987) has shown that children who acquire a second language tend
to be more open-minded and more tolerant than their monolingual counterparts. Genesee
(1987) also found that these children tend to have a better sense of their interlocutors'
communicative needs than do monolinguals.
It would be simplistic, however, to say that all bilingualism leads to cognitive and social
advantages. Cognitive and social advantage from bilingualism is linked in particular to
additive bilingualism. Under favourable social conditions where both languages are valued
and reinforced, bilingualism may have positive effects on the cognitive process and on
social attitudes. Under adverse social conditions in which the child's home language is
under valued and is not reinforced through the education system, bilingualism may impede
cognitive and social development.

Bilingual education
In the literature on bilingual education the term is used to describe a variety of education
programmes involving two or more languages to varying degrees. In Australia's National
Policy on Languages (lo Bianco 1987:155) bilingual education was defined as a
programme in which 'two languages are used as media of instruction. The content of
instruction includes some of the curriculum in both languages over time'. This definition
insists on the use of two languages as media of instruction. It does not include curricula,
such as those found in many Australian schools, in which a second language is taught as
a subject, but is not used elsewhere in the curriculum. Second language instruction,
however, is frequently a part of bilingual programmes.
Under this definition, bilingual programmes may be one of four types (see Hamers and
Blanc 1989):
1. transitional bilingualism in which first language is used only to facilitate the transition
to the second (official) language;
2. mono-literate bilingualism where the school uses two languages for most of its
activities but uses only one language (the second language) to introduce literacy skills;
3. partial biliterate bilingualism in which both languages are used for all four language
skills, but in which academic subjects are divided in such a way that the first language is
used for 'cultural subjects' such as arts, folklore, history and the second language is used
for 'technical subjects' such as science and economics.
4. total bi-literate bilingualism in which all language skills are developed in both
languages in all domains.
Bilingual education aims to foster the child's abilities in both languages. Recent research
in the field of second language acquisition have shown that the first and second language
are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Research has shown that time spent
on the first language does not detract from the development of the second language but
rather that greater first language proficiency results in more efficient second language
development. For example, in a study conducted over three years, Hakuta (1987) found a
pattern of increasing correlation between Spanish and English vocabulary scores in
several groups of Puerto Rican children in bilingual programmes. Cross-sectional studies
also report high levels of correlation between children's abilities in both their languages
(Cummins 1984, Snow 1987). The fact that older children are more efficient learners
oflanguage than younger children has been suggested as further evidence that strong first
language skills result in better second language learning (Hakuta 1990b).
 Cross-language transfer of skills
A fundamental assumption which underlies bilingual education is that skills and
knowledge acquired in one language are easily transferred to another. Thus, a child who
learns about a scientific concept in Russian would be able to transfer this knowledge to
English, or any other language, without having to relearn the concept, as long as he/she
has access to the available vocabulary. Lambert and Tucker (1972) in their review of
Canadian French immersion programmes observed that the high order skills such as
reading and calculating which were developed exclusively through French seemed to be
simultaneously developed in English. They also observed that this transfer of skills
occurred very rapidly. However, transfer of lower level literacy skills may be more delayed
when the transfer is between languages which have different scripts.
The notion of the transfer of skills is also supported by research in cognitive science.
Goldman, Reyes and Varnhagen (1984) showed that bilingual children employ similar
comprehension strategies when listening to the same stories in two languages. This study
indirectly showed that higher order cognitive processes were independent of a specific
language. Malakoff (1988) demonstrated that French-English bilinguals performed similarly
on analogical reasoning tasks in each oftheir languages. In addition, much research into
adult bilinguals' memory for lists of words has shown that in general content transcends
language (Arkwright and Viau 1974, Gekoski 1980). In effect, when people learn a concept
or skill, they form an understanding of the concept or skill that is independent of the
specific language in which the concept is presented, even though the act oflearning can
draw on that language to regulate thinking.
Given that skills do transfer across languages it is possible that transfer could occur
either on a specific skill-by-skill or concept-by-concept basis or it could involve the transfer
of an entire structure of skills or concepts in a domain. Hakuta (1990a) taught first grade
students in a bilingual programme concepts in the area of spatial and temporal relation in
Spanish and assessed the extent to which the transfer of these concepts to English was
holistic or componential and concluded that the transfer of skills was holistic and depended
on the child's general proficiency in his/her first language rather than on the specific set of
skills which were taught.
From this brief overview, it can be seen that the large amount of research that has been
done in recent years on bilingualism and bilingual education has led to a deeper
understanding of bilingualism. It is obvious that bilingualism is appreciated as being a far
more complex phenomenon which has social, intellectual and other dimensions.
Bilingualism has come to be seen as a resource to be developed through education rather
than as a problem to be overcome.