Sociolinguistics Thesis

ABSTRACT
The topic of bilingual education has received heightened attention over the past
few decades. How to educate children with limited English skills, or English learners
(EL), is a highly controversial and debatable issue that deserves attention because of the
vast numbers of English learners in Pakistan, today. ELs are students for whom English
is a second language and who come from homes in which a language other than English
is spoken.
Many children in Pakistan grow up exposed to two languages from an early age.
Parents of bilingual infants and toddlers have important questions about the costs and
benefits of early bilingualism, and how to best support language acquisition in their
children. Our research work probe into the depth that is it useful for a child to be
exposed to two or more than two languages at an initial stage. This makes bilingual
education largely a Latino issue.
INTRODUCTION:
The topic of bilingual education has received heightened attention over the past
few decades. How to educate children with limited English skills, or English learners
(EL), is a highly controversial and debatable issue that deserves attention because of the
vast numbers of English learners in Pakistan today. ELS are students for whom English
is a second language and who come from homes in which a language other than English
is spoken. When thinking about bilingual education we are inclined to
think of a program designed to promote dual language proficiency in
students. However, in the Pakistan, most bilingual programs are
designed to facilitate transition from a non-English language into
English. The two most common language development models used to educate ELs are
Sociolinguistics Mubarak Ali Sra (BI-585544) Assignment No. 2 Page 1 of 37

transitional bilingual education and structured English immersion. According to Mitchell
et al. (1999), language development models arise out of a combination of three different
elements: linguistic theory, political commitment, and educational focus. The two
competing assumptions of linguistic theory posit that (1) first-language knowledge
reinforces and enhances second language learning, and (2) there is interference between
languages learned simultaneously that must be overcome. The political element
behind language development models reflects tensions between using
the model to develop a monolingual, common national culture for all
students, or a multilingual, cosmopolitan culture. Educational focus
refers to the primary purpose of the language development model:
academic content acquisition or language development. Transitional
bilingual education uses initial native language instruction for
academic exposure and gradually transitions the student to academic
instruction in English over a period of time. Once students develop
English proficiency they are transitioned into the academic
The two most common language development models used to educate ELs
aretransitional bilingual education and structured English immersion. According to
Mitchell et al.(1999), language development models arise out of a combination of three
different elements: linguistic theory, political commitment, and educational focus. The
two competing assumptions of linguistic theory posit that (1) first-language knowledge
reinforces and enhances second language learning, and (2) there is interference between
languages learned simultaneously that must be overcome. The political element behind
language development models reflects tensions between using the model to develop a
monolingual, common national culture for all students, or a multilingual, cosmopolitan
culture. Educational focus refers to the primary purpose of the language development

model: academic content acquisition or language development. Transitional bilingual
education uses initial native language instruction for academic exposure and gradually
transitions the student to academic instruction in English over a period of time. Once
students develop English proficiency they are transitioned into the academic mainstream.
This model emphasizes academic learning relying on linguistic reinforcement and aims
to develop an English monolingual, common culture. On the other hand, the second-
language development employed most often in the United States is structured English
immersion. According to Porter, The goal is threefold: early literacy development in
English, subject matter instruction in English with a special curriculum, and early
inclusion of [English learner] students in mainstream classrooms for maximum exposure
to native speakers of English and for greater integration of diverse student
populations(Porter, 2000, p. 54). This model assumes interference between languages
and seeks to reduce that interference by offering minimal native-language instruction for
English language learners in order to facilitate English proficiency.
We will observe a bilingual class and come up with its importance or non utility.
We will use observation sheets and interview a few language teachers for a more
authentic view.
The history of the debate on bilingual education is characterized by inattention to
relevant research. Both opponents and advocates of bilingual education have been
influenced by popularly held opinions more than by expertise, and have invoked
research, if at all, haphazardly. Unsystematically, and without the desired thoroughness
or rigor. We therefore welcome this opportunity to outline the conclusions to be drawn
from research on bilingual education and bilingualism in children
LITERATURE REVIEW:

Research on mother tongue-based bilingual/multilingual education in early childhood
and the transition to primary education is scarce. Th e existing empirical evidence is
dispersed across formal, published literature and programme reports from non-
governmental organizations, conference proceedings, and newsletters. This report draws
on research and programme reports identified through a literature search that included:
academic journals and books; government reports; publications and reports of
international (multilateral and bilateral) and regional development agencies, research
institutes and non-governmental organizations or networks; and correspondence with
scholars in the fi eld. Th e literature review was broad in scope in terms of geographical
coverage. Consideration was given to the documents below:
Convention against Discrimination on Education (1960);

World Declaration on Education for All (1990);
Dakar Framework for Action (2000);
Education in a Multilingual World: UNESCO Education Position Paper (2003a);
Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring Access to Education for All (2003b);
UNESCO Guidelines on Intercultural Education (2006);
UNESCO Global Monitoring Report on Education for All: Strong foundations
(2007);
UNESCO Global Monitoring Report on Education for All: Will we make it?
(2008a).
The bulletin for the 2008 International Conference on Language Development,
Language Revitalization and Multilingual Education in Ethno linguistic Communities
was a rich resource. Another useful source on programme approaches was the online
Language Policy Website & Emporium.
Method of data analysis

The research was conducted between February and May in 2010. A quantitative

research instrument was constructed (Cseh-Szombathy & Ferge, 1971; Szokolszky,
2004) in continuous consultation with my supervisor and my fellow PhD students. The
focal point of the research was to conduct a deep statistical analysis of the data gained
and check the reliability of the questionnaire as well as setting up a possible path model
of the interrelationship between the social environment and the adult EFL learner.
THEORIES AND APPROACHES

This review begins with an overview of theory and research on fi rst and second
language acquisition in childhood. Scholars in developmental psychology, linguistics,
and early childhood education continue to put forward competing theories. However,
there is broad agreement that young childrens ability to learn languages and their
emerging reading and writing skills are affected by their social environments, including
the language(s) to which they are exposed, the language socialization practices of their
caregivers (Heath, 1983; Pesco & Crago, 2008; Van Kleek, 1994), and language
instruction. Some children are born into home environments in which they are exposed
to more than one language and they begin to acquire two primary languages
simultaneously (e.g., McLaughlin, 1984). Some children start out as monolingual, and
begin to acquire a second language sometime in early childhood, for example, in an early
childhood programme or through other interactions outside the home, and thus can be
said to be acquiring a second language.
Before reviewing understandings of language acquisition in childhood, it is
important to clarify that both L1 and L2 acquisition by young children (up to about age
7) appear to diff er signifi cantly from language acquisition by older children (Bongartz
& Schneider, 2003; Cook, 2000, Hatch, 1978; Liu, 1991). The distinctive nature of
young childrens L2 acquisition calls for a distinctive approach to supporting L2
acquisition in the early years. Another distinction that Nicholas and Lightbown (2008)

explain is that the pace of learning an additional language, and eff ective instruction or
support for children to learn an additional language, will depend upon whether the child
is has developed literacy in L1. Literacy entails the development of metalinguistic
awareness, including the knowledge that the pronunciation of words is related to the
written form (for most languages), and that there are right and wrong ways to say
things
(August & Shanahan, 2006). Populations without first language literacy have been
overlooked in second language acquisition research literature (Tarone & Bigelow, 2005)
this includes very young children, as well as illiterate older children and adults. These
clarifications indicate the complexities of bi/multilingual learning and instruction in
childhood, as well as the partial and evolving nature of our understandings of variables
that affect learning outcomes for individuals at different ages and with different pre-
existing skills. Investigators of multilingual acquisition have underscored the need to
have more information on the development of each language when children are learning
more than one language concurrently, and the dire need in the field as a whole of having
bilingual developmental norms, especially with respect to different levels of language
dominance (Yavas, 2007).
Language acquisition in childhood

Until recently, two explanatory approaches behaviourist and nativist
dominated understandings about language acquisition. Following Skinner (1957), the
behaviourists argued that infants continue to produce and to learn the properties of
language (e.g., sounds, vocabulary, pragmatics, etc.) that are positively reinforced by the
childs caregivers and other members of the childs social community. Critics of this
account point to the speed of language acquisition in the early years and the stability of
acquired meaning, neither of which can be explained by the behaviorist position. In stark

contrast, nativists, following Chomsky (1965,1975) argued that children have an innate
grasp of how language works. Thus, while language input activates their inborn capacity
for learning language, their learning is internally guided. Critics of this position point to
empirical studies showing that the quality and quantity of a childs exposure to language
affects their learning (Hart & Risley, 1995).
More recently, developmental psychologists have applied contemporary theories
of learning to explain language acquisition. They argue that language is a uniquely
human, biologically based capacity, and that the inherent potential to learn language
depends on the language environment effectively, a bicultural perspective.
Theories of second language acquisition

To date, studies of language acquisition have been based primarily on studies of
monolingual acquisition, resulting in more theory than empirical evidence. However,
scholars agree broadly that children, including most children with specifi c learning
impairments or low general intelligence, have the capacity to learn more than one
language (Genesee, 2002).
Theories of second language acquisition are central to the current focus on
mother tongue-based bi/ multilingual learning. The behaviourist approach, referred to as
the contrastive hypothesis (Fries, 1945; Lado, 1957), assumes that the same processes
of positive reinforcement that influence first language acquisition support the learning of
second or additional languages. However, behaviourists suggest that when the first and
second languages are structurally similar, L2 is easier to learn because children can
transfer their learning
from L1 to L2.

The nativist-oriented identity hypothesis posits that universal cognitive
structures and processes enable both first and subsequent language acquisition; learning
neither benefits from, nor is hindered by, learning L1.
The interlanguage hypothesis combines the contrastive and identity hypotheses,
featuring both neuropsychological and social-psychological aspects. This approach
emphasizes the role of a broad array of communicative strategies in second language
learning, in addition to purely linguistic strategies. Strategies include avoidance of
topics, changes in meaning, code-switching, borrowing, gestures, and facial expression,
among others. In accounting for the speed, quality, and trajectory of second language
learning, the interlanguage hypothesis highlights the role of the speech-language
community, including the adequacy of learning opportunities, the quality of language
input, and acceptance by the dominant culture.
The separate development hypothesis proposes that after a period of mixing
languages in the first two years of life, the two (or more) languages develop
independently of one another, especially when the child is exposed to the two (or more)
languages in distinct ways (e.g., different people use different languages, or different
languages are used in different contexts) (De Houwer, 1994).
Social-interactionist theory posits that language learning result from the
interaction of the learners innate ability and their language environment, especially the
feedback they receive from fl uent speakers of L2 to monitor and improve their output.
This theory emphasizes the importance of the learners language environments and their
opportunities to produce language and receive feedback.
Critical to the focus of this review, recent investigations have considered the level
of competence achieved by learners in their first language in determining the pace,
quality, and outcomes of their second language acquisition. Two hypotheses are

especially relevant to this discussion: the threshold level hypothesis and the
interdependence hypothesis.
Skutnabb-Tangas and Toukomaa (1976) proposed the threshold level
hypothesis, which posits that only when children have reached a threshold of
competence in their first language can they successfully learn a second language without
losing competence in both languages. Further, only when a child has crossed a second
threshold of competence in both languages will the childs bilingualism positively affect
intellectual development, a state which they called additive bilingualism. Skutnabb-
Tangas and Toukomaa developed the threshold level hypothesis aft er they found that
Finnish children who migrated to Sweden and were required to start school in Swedish
before they had become sufficiently competent in Finnish showed weaker school
performance and lower competence in both Swedish and Finnish. They characterized this
low competence in both the first and second languages as semilingualism, explaining
that if the childs first language is insufficiently developed, the foundation for L2 is
lacking. In their study, Finnish migrant children who started school in Sweden after they
were highly competent in their first language and could continue to develop their first
language abilities as they learned their second language attained high levels of
competence in both languages and success in school.
Building on these findings, Cummins (1984) formulated an interdependence
hypothesis, asserting that second language competence depends upon the level of
development of L1. Cummins distinguished between two kinds of language mastery:
interpersonal communication refers to oral communication skills that are used in
everyday situations, while cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) is
achieved when the speaker can use language in decontextualized ways, including

writing, permitting the use of the language as a cognitive tool. Cummins argues that if
learners have achieved CALP in L1, this competence can be transferred to L2, permitting
them to participate successfully in academic learning in L2. If, however, learners have
not achieved CALP in L1, both academic learning and second language learning are
adversely affected. Accordingly, Cummins recommends beginning general academic
instruction in the childs mother tongue until the child has become highly competent
(i.e., has achieved CALP) in L1. Recently, the concept and operational definition of
CALP has been challenged by research-practitioners arguing that what counts as CALP
has been arbitrarily defined and varies widely, and that it is pedagogically
counterproductive to refer to any classroom language as truly decontextualized (e.g.,
Aukerman, 2007). Critics have urged teachers to hold childrens understandings of
context in a central place in teaching and learning. Indeed, none of the hypotheses
reviewed here have been conclusively supported by empirical research. Studies seem to
confirm the threshold level hypothesis and the interdependence hypothesis, but existing
research is based on small sample sizes. Studies have also been criticized for
methodological shortcomings (see Sohn, 2005), discussed subsequently.
The Effectiveness of Bilingual Education: What Really Works?
Even though national and California politicians have taken a stand on what they
believe
is the best way to educate language minority students, researchers have not yet reached
an agreement on this issue. Research findings on the effectiveness of the different kinds
of bilingual education models are conflicting. A review of the research on bilingual
education reveals that there is support for and opposition to non-English-language
instruction. Although many studies have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of
bilingual education, they have not been able to build a consensus.

Criticism for bilingual education studies most often arises out of methodological
issues (Gersten, 1999), conflicting linguistic theories, and/or disputes regarding
educational focus. In assessing the effectiveness of bilingual education programs it is
difficult to employ rigorous methodological standards. Specifically, problems with
randomization and the length of program evaluations have been routinely cited in studies
on bilingual education. Also, linguists have not reached a consensus on whether
knowledge of one language interferes [with] or reinforces the acquisition of a second
language (Mitchell et al., 1999, p. 89). With regards to educational focus, researchers
remain divided on which program outcome should take precedence for ELs: academic
acquisition or English-language acquisition. Several studies have found support for
bilingual education (see Table A1 in Appendix A). For example, when evaluating
previous results of bilingual education and its effectiveness in teaching students how to
read in English, Slavin and Cheung (2004) found considerable support for bilingual
programs, and in no case did English-only programs outperform bilingual programs (p.
54). They found that students taught to read in both their native language and in English
performed much better on English reading tests than did the students taught only in
English (p.54). In addition, other researchers have conducted a review of existing
studies in the form of a meta-analysis (Greene, 1997; Willig, 1985). Both of these studies
found significant positive effects in favor of bilingual instruction over English
immersion. However, these studies have been criticized by other researchers and their
results questioned. For example, Gersten (1999) and Baker (1999) evaluated Greenes
study and found no benefits of native-language instruction. Gersten also notes numerous
methodological problems in the data (p. 45). Also, Baker (1999) criticizes Willigs
analysis because, he states, although Willig found bilingual instruction in English and
Spanish superior to all-English instruction in terms of students academic performance in

Spanish the effect of bilingual education on English alone was negative (p.707,
emphasis in original). He asserts that Too much classroom use of Spanish harms
learning English (p. 707). Similarly, Porter (2000) claims that there is no evidence for
the superiority of native-language teaching programs for students better or more rapid
learning either of English or of subject matter (p. 52).
In a study indirectly measuring the effectiveness of bilingual education, Padilla
and Gonzalez (2001) examined the relationship between ESL/bilingual instruction and
school performance of U.S.-born and Mexican-born high school students. The
researchers performed a secondary analysis of an existing data set in which students
were asked to self-report whether or not they had ever received bilingual/ESL
instruction, their nationality, immigrant status, and GPA, among other things. The
researchers found that general-track students who receive some schooling in Mexico
and college-track students that receive ESL/bilingual education had higher GPAs
compared to students without such instruction (p. 738).
Even among the studies that support bilingual education there is little consensus
on how long it takes to acquire second-language proficiency. Some studies concluded
that students need four to seven years to achieve grade-level academic performance in
English (as cited in Crawford, 2004). Another study claims that students in Arizona need
on average 3.3 years to acquire proficiency in English, with the rate of acquisition
varying from 1 to 6.5 years (as cited in Crawford, 2004). In regards to Proposition 227,
some believe that the one-year sheltered immersion, which is to precede students
transfer into English-only classrooms, will not equip children with sufficient English
fluency to succeed in English-medium classrooms (Sekhon, 1999, p. 1424). Perhaps the
one thing that is certain is that there is no standard learning curve for acquiring a second
language that is sure to match the needs of all children.

What Now?
Given the controversy and lack of consensus regarding bilingual
education, my aim in this study is to determine the state of ELs in
California, thereby indirectly evaluating bilingual education in that
state. The study analyzes whether ELs significantly affect schools
academic performance. The main goal of this study is to measure the
impact of ELs on schools academic performance after controlling for
several school characteristics. Because schools academic
performance is contingent on student test scores, the impact of ELs on
schools academic performance reveals the overall state of ELs in
California public schools.
METHODS
Data are taken from Californias Department of Education 2004 Academic
Performance Index Base Data File. The data file contains a measure of school academic
performance for public elementary, middle, and high schools in California as well as
other school attributes, such as percent of ELs, racial composition, parental education,
poverty, etc. School academic performance is given in terms of the Academic
Performance Index (API). The API is used to measure school and district performance
based on student test scores. Scores range from 200 to 1,000 (with 800 as the minimum
goal) and indicate how well a school or district performed, based on spring testing. Two
out of three types of tests given as part of the STAR (Standardized Testing and
Reporting) program are used to calculate the API; they are:
(1) California Standards Tests (CSTs) comprising tests in English/language arts
and mathematics given in all grades, science in grades 5 and 9-11, and

history/social science in grades 8, 10, and 11 based on Californias academic
content standards, and
2. California Achievement Test, Sixth Edition (CAT/6), a standardized national
test given to students in grades 2-11. The third STAR test, Spanish
Assessment of Basic Education, Second Edition (SABE/2), a test for Spanish
speaking students who have been in a California school for a year or less, is
not part of the API calculation. To calculate the API, individual student test
scores are weighted and summed.
The variables used in the analyses are summarized in Table 1. The primary
independent variable of interest to this study is the percent of ELs. Nevertheless,
controlling for variables such as the percent of students in the free or reduced lunch
program (a measure of poverty), parental education level, schools racial/ethnic
composition, etc., will allow a more accurate understanding of the effect of ELs on the
API.
Enhancing learning of children from diverse language backgrounds: Mother

tongue-based bilingual or multilingual education in the early years
Bilingualism is believed to play an effective role in a language class? In your opinion is
it useful for a child to be exposed to two or more than two languages at an initial stage/a
very low level? Observe a bilingual class for a certain period of time and come up with
your findings and recommendations as to its importance or non utility. You can use
observation sheets. Also interview a few language teachers for a more authentic view.
Prepare a report in detail highlighting the concept of bilingualism. You can make use of
your own experience as well and give examples as a language teacher while preparing
the report. Attach the questionnaires and observation sheets used for the collection of
data. Present the mini project in the tutorial.

When I was preparing my first book on bilingualism some thirty years ago, I was
confronted with opposing views on the effect of bilingualism on children. Studies in the
first half of the last century appeared to show that bilingual children had lower IQs and
that they were outperformed by monolingual children in both verbal and
nonverbal intelligence tests. Most of those studies concluded that bilingualism had a
negative effect on the child's linguistic, cognitive and educational development.
Midway through the last century, the opinions changed rather suddenly and researchers
found that bilingualism was, after all, a real asset for the child. Many studies came to the
conclusion that bilinguals are more sensitive to semantic relations between words, are
better able to treat sentence structure analytically, are better at rule-discovery tasks, have
greater social sensitivity, and so on.
Why was there such a discrepancy between the studies of the first and the second half of
the century? We now know that one of the main problems lay in making sure that the
monolingual and bilingual groups used in the studies were truly comparable in every
aspect, apart from their linguistic skills. Even though studies in the latter part of the
century controlled for many factors, a slight bias may have favored bilingual children at
that time.
ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT
I returned to the question three years ago when I was preparing my recent book on
bilingualism. I contacted developmental psycholinguist Ellen Bialystok, the best-known
authority in the field, and she kindly sent me papers to read and brought me up to date.
What emerges from recent research is that the differences between bilinguals and
monolinguals, when any are found, are specific to a particular task and can be quite
subtle.
It is now clear that bilingualism enhances problem solving where the solutions depend
on selective attention or inhibitory control (abilities of the executive control system,
according to Bialystok). This advantage seems to continue throughout the bilingual's
lifespan and is even present in elderly bilinguals. (I will write a post on this later).
The advantage shown by bilinguals - as discussed by Ellen Bialystok in a recent

interview - is found also in certain metalinguistic abilities, that is, our capacity to analyze
different aspects of language (sounds, words, syntax and so on) and, if needed, to talk
about these properties. But the advantage is present only when selective attention or
inhibitory control are needed to do the task. This is the case when a problem contains a
conflict or an ambiguity such as counting words in a correct sentence, using a new (or

made-up) name for an object in a sentence, judging that a sentence such as "apples grow
on noses" is syntactically grammatical even though it contains a semantic anomaly, and
so on.
When the metalinguistic task requires the analysis of representational structures, then
monolinguals and bilinguals obtain similar results. This occurs when the task is to
explain grammatical errors in a sentence, substitute one sound for another, interchange
sounds, etc.
One domain where it would appear that bilinguals do less well than monolinguals is in
vocabulary tests such as choosing a picture that illustrates the word spoken by the
experimenter. This is not surprising, however, as bilingual children start being affected
by the complementarity principle (see here) which states that bilinguals usually acquire
and use their languages for different purposes, in different domains of life, and with
different people. When bilingual children are evaluated in terms of both their languages,
then the results improve greatly.
ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT
So where do we stand today on the effects of bilingualism? Ellen Bialystok and Xiaojia
Feng give a reply: "The picture emerging from these studies is a complex portrait of
interactions between bilingualism and skill acquisition in which there are sometimes
benefits for bilingual children, sometimes deficits, and sometimes no consequence at
all." (p. 121).
In sum, we now have a fuller and more complex picture of what the differences are
between monolinguals and bilinguals - when differences exist!
References
Bialystok, E. & Feng, X. (2010). Language proficiency and its implications for
monolingual and bilingual children. In A. Durgunoglu & C. Goldenberg (Eds.). Dual
language learners: The development and assessment of oral and written language. (pp.
121-138). New York: Guilford Press.
Grosjean, F. Effects of bilingualism on children. Chapter 18 of Grosjean, F.

(2010). Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
"Life as a bilingual" posts by content area: http://www.francoisgrosjean.ch/blog_en.html
Franois Grosjean's website: www.francoisgrosjean.ch

Last year, in October, I remember logging onto Facebook and seeing
dozens of posts about Mark Zuckerberg speaking Mandarin,
seemingly out of nowhere.
Even though this seemed like a sudden development, he acquired his language skills
through hard work and discipline. I remember seeing him on Oprah several years ago,
revealing that he took Chinese lessons before work every day, even though he was
regularly putting in 16 hours at the office.
I want to parallel his story with the story of my friend, Jenny, who isnt a tech or
business genius, but is really good at picking up Mandarin. Jenny is originally from
China, but was adopted by a lovely couple from Arizona when she was about 10 months
old. She grew up in the United States, and the only Mandarin she encountered was
during those first 10 months of her life.
When she was in her mid-twenties, Jenny decided she wanted to learn her native
language, and today she sounds like a native speaker. As a scientist, I wondered how she
was able to do it so quickly, and why it took Mark a lot longer. Was the difference
innate? No, I realized. This difference had nothing to do with genes; instead it has to do
with differences in their early childhood experiences.
How early is early childhood?
The early years of brain development are of critical importance. Parents who want the
best early academic experience (and later academic successes) for their children must
focus on the role that early childhood education plays in a persons development.
For understandable reasons, parents sometimes view early childhood education as
preparation for kindergarten and for learning skills like reading, writing, and math. But

the most critical phases of early childhood education actually begin at birth. By age
three, about 85 percent of the wiring in childrens brains has already been formed.
Thanks to an abundance of media attention that early childhood education gets, many
parents do indeed understand that this time period is critical for a childs brain
development. But a lot of us just dont know what to do in the first three years. I want to
discuss the potentially significant neurological benefits of exposing children, starting at
the earliest ages, to multiple languages.
When should a child start learning a foreign language?
Every child is born with the ability to learn any language, and it is true that young
children can learn multiple languages at the same time with remarkable ease. But how do
children do it? What happens that allows them to absorb these strange sounds, and what
kind of impact does it have on their life?
First, its important to remember that each language has its own set of sounds, and that
there are certain sounds that may be present in one language and not present in another.
For instance, there are not two distinct sounds for r and l in Japanese, as this linguist
explains in a TED talk. Instead, there is one letter that combines both sounds. This is
why monolingual Japanese speakers have difficulty distinguishing these sounds in other
languages like English.
There is a comparatively brief window of time at which infants, no matter their
background or the language their parents speak, can differentiate the sounds of all
languages. After 1012 months, children lose this ability and can only perceive and
differentiate the sounds that they were exposed to before that time.

Can this decline in the ability of children to hear foreign sounds be reversed? Yes,
however, research tells us convincingly that there is a critical time window for
implementing the process of reversal. After roughly the age of four, the loss is
permanent.
What impact does exposing your child to another language have?
Exposure to multiple language sounds at an early age is critical if parents want their
child to learn another language later in life. Additionally, exposing children to several
languages when they are in this critical period can helpsustain the brains capacity for
malleability.
The benefits of learning multiple languages at a very early age are no longer a matter of
conjecture. Scientists have observed differences in the brains of people who learned a
foreign language early as opposed to late in life. Those who learned multiple languages
in early childhood listen to and process all of these languages in the same region of the
brain. Meanwhile, people who learned a language after this critical period process new
languages in a smaller region far away from where ones native language is processed.
This research confirms that the brain actually restructures itself not only while learning
or speaking a language, but from the simple act of being exposed to it.
The differences that brain imaging shows us dont end there. Recently, scientists have
studied language retentionin Chinese people who had been adopted by French families
when they were 12 months old before they knew how to speak Chinese. After
adoption, these children had no additional exposure to their native tongue.
Researchers exposed the adopted children and a group of French-born children to a set of
Chinese tones. Despite not being able to speak Chinese, the adopted children processed

the tones on the left side of the brain, where language is processed. On the other hand,
the Frenchborn children who had never been exposed to Chinese processed the tones on
the right side of their brain, in the area that people use process music.
What can monolingual parents do?
Previously, Yonah Korngold suggested five ways to incorporate foreign languages into
your preschoolers life. His suggestions included having your child spend time with a
native speaker and finding extracurricular activities in a foreign language.
Something else monolingual parents can consider is exposing their kids to media in a
foreign language. Use songs or shows in another language, but be sure to turn these into
interactive experiences for your children! As Noam Chomsky explained to me, language
immersion needs to be grounded in motivation the words you expose your child to
should be connected to her actions.
For example, try having a friend who speaks a foreign language record vocabulary words
on your phone and title the files with the English names of household objects. Then you
can have your child point at different things around your home and play the word that
matches whatever she is drawn to. Another way you can do this is by looking up the
translation of childhood songs in foreign languages and playing them in related
environments (a song about going to sleep as your child gets ready for bed, for one).
My own company, Kadho, develops mobile apps that expose babies and toddlers to the
building blocks of languages in an interactive manner, one that adapts to a child's
learning pace. When children this young hear these sounds repetitively, they prepare a
childs brain to learn native and foreign languages.

The Facts: What We Know About Bilingualism
Our world is becoming increasingly multilingual. Consider some of the following
statistics: In Canada....
11.9 % of the population speaks a language other than English or French at home
(1). In Toronto, 31% of the population speaks a language other than English or
French at home (2).
In the United States....
21% of school-age children (between ages 5-17) speak a language other than
English at home (3). This number is projected to increase in the coming years (4).
Worldwide, it is estimated that....
there are more second language speakers of English than native speakers (5).
there are as many bilingual children as there are monolingual children (10).
These trends mean that many children are being raised as bilinguals. Sometimes
bilingualism is a necessity, as a childs parents may not be fluent in the majority
(dominant) language spoken in the community. Therefore, the child may learn one
language at home and another at school. But sometimes bilingualism is a choice, and
parents may wish to expose their child to another language, even if they do not speak a
second language themselves. This could be due to the many benefits of being bilingual.
Benefits of Bilingualism

Bilingual children are better able to focus their attention on relevant information
and ignore distractions (7, 8). For more information, click here for our article
Are Two Languages Better Than One?.
Bilingual individuals have been shown to be more creative and better at planning
and solving complex problems than monolinguals (9, 10).
The effects of aging on the brain are diminished among bilingual adults (7).
In one study, the onset of dementia was delayed by 4 years in bilinguals
compared to monolinguals with dementia (10).
Bilingual individuals have greater access to people and resources (9).
In Canada, employment rates are higher for French/English bilinguals than
monolinguals (7).
Canadians who speak both official languages have a median income nearly 10%
higher than that of those who speak English only, and 40% higher than that of
those who speak French only (7).
The cognitive advantages of bilingualism (e.g . with attention, problem solving, etc.)
seem to be related to an individuals proficiency in his languages (10). This means that a
person will benefit more from his bilingualism (cognitively) if he is more proficient in
his languages.
How children learn more than one language

Bilingual acquisition can take place in one of two ways:

1. Simultaneous Acquisition occurs when a child is raised bilingually from
birth, or when the second language is introduced before the age of three
(10). Children learning two languages simultaneously go through the
same developmental stages as children learning one language. While
bilingual children may start talking slightly later than monolingual children,
they still begin talking within the normal range (11). From the very
beginning of language learning, simultaneous bilinguals seem to acquire
two separate languages (10). Early on, they are able to differentiate their
two languages and have been shown to switch languages according to
their conversation partner (e.g. speak French to a French-speaking
parent, then switch to English with an English-speaking parent) (12, 13).
2. Sequential Acquisition occurs when a second language is introduced
after the first language is well-established (generally after the age of
three). Children may experience sequential acquisition if they immigrate
to a country where a different language is spoken. Sequential learning
may also occur if the child exclusively speaks his heritage language at
home until he begins school, where instruction is offered in a different
language.
A child who acquires a second language in this manner generally experiences
initially, he may use his home language for a brief period

Fiction: Some Myths about Bilingualism
initially, he may use his home language for a brief period.
he may go through a Silent or Nonverbal Period when he is first
exposed to a second language. This can last from a few weeks to several
months, and is most likely a time when the child builds his understanding of
the language (14). Younger children usually remain in this phase longer than
older children. Children may rely on using gestures in this period, and use few
words in the second language.
he will begin to use short or imitative sentences. The child may use one-
word labels or memorized phrases such as I dunno or Whats this?. These
sentences are not constructed from the childs own vocabulary or knowledge
of the language. Rather, they are phrases he has heard and memorized.
eventually, he will begin to produce his own sentences. These sentences
are not entirely memorized, and incorporate some of the childs own newly-
learned vocabulary. The child may use a formula at first when constructing
sentences and insert his own word into a common phrase such as I want
or I do.. Eventually the child becomes more and more fluent, but continues
to make grammatical mistakes or produce sentences that sound abbreviated
because he is missing some grammatical rules (e.g. I no want eat apple
instead of I dont want to eat an apple). Some of the mistakes a child makes
at this stage are due to the influence of his first language. But many of the
mistakes are the same types of mistakes that monolingual children make
when they learn that language.the following (10):

#1. Bilingualism causes language delay.
FALSE. While a bilingual childs vocabulary in each individual language
may be smaller than average, his total vocabulary (from both languages)
will be at least the same size as a monolingual child (10, 15). Bilingual
children may say their first words slightly later than monolingual children,
but still within the normal age range (between 8-15 months) (11). And
when bilingual children start to produce short sentences, they develop
grammar along the same patterns and timelines as children learning one
language (5). Bilingualism itself does not cause language delay (10). A
bilingual child who is demonstrating significant delays in language
milestones could have a language disorder and should be seen by a
speech language pathologist.
#2. When children mix their languages it means that they are confused and
having trouble becoming bilingual.
FALSE. When children use both languages within the same sentence or
conversation, it is known as code mixing or code switching. Examples
of English-French code-mixing: big bobo (bruise or cut), or je veux
aller manger tomato (I want to go eat..) (10). Parents sometimes worry
that this mixing is a sign of language delay or confusion. However, code
mixing is a natural part of bilingualism (17). Proficient adult bilinguals
code mix when they converse with other bilinguals, and it should be
expected that bilingual children will code-mix when speaking with other
bilinguals (5).
Many researchers see code mixing as a sign of bilingual proficiency. For
example, bilingual children adjust the amount of code-mixing they use to

match that of a new conversational partner (someone theyve never met
before who also code mixes) (5). It has also been suggested that children
code-mix when they know a word in one language but not the other (13).
Furthermore, sometimes code-mixing is used to emphasize something,
express emotion, or to highlight what someone else said in the other
language. For example, Y luego l dijo STOP (Spanish mixed with
English: "And then he said STOP!") (10). Therefore, code-mixing is
natural and should be expected in bilingual children.
#3. A person is not truly bilingual unless he is equally proficient in both

languages.
FALSE. It is rare to find an individual who is equally proficient in both languages
(16). Most bilinguals have a dominant language, a language of greater
proficiency. The dominant language is often influenced by the majority language
of the society in which the individual lives (6). An individuals dominant language
can change with age, circumstance, education, social network, employment, and
many other factors (16).
#4. An individual must learn a second language as a young child in order to

become bilingual.
FALSE. There is a Critical Period theory that suggests that there is a
window of time (early childhood) during which a second language is most
easily learned. This theory has led many people to believe that it is better to
learn a second language as a young child. Young children have been found
to achieve better native-like pronunciation than older children or adult second
language learners. And they seem to achieve better long-term grammatical
skills than older learners (10). But other findings have called the idea of a
critical period into question. For example:
older children (in middle elementary school) have been shown to have
advantages when learning academic English. Academic language

refers to the specialized vocabulary, grammar, and conversational
ability needed to understand and learn in school (10). This is likely
easier for older children because they learn their second language
with more advanced cognitive skills than younger children, and with
more experience with schooling and literacy (10).
older children and adults seem to be advantaged when initially
learning vocabulary and grammar (10, 16, 18).
Therefore, while younger children seem to become more native-like in the
long-term, older children may pick up vocabulary, grammar, and academic
language more easily in the initial stages of language learning.
#5. Parents should adopt the one parent-one language approach when
exposing their child to two languages.
FALSE. Some parents may choose to adopt the one parent-one language
approach, where each parent speaks a different language to the child. While this
is one option for raising a bilingual child, there is no evidence to suggest that it is
the only or best way to raise a child bilingually, or that it reduces code mixing
(10). Parents should not worry if they both speak their native language to the
child or if they mix languages with their child (19), as it has been recognized that
children will mix their languages regardless of the parents approach (10). Many
approaches can lead to bilingualism. Parents should speak to their child in a way
that is comfortable and natural to them.
#6. If you want your child to speak the majority language, you should stop
speaking your home language with your child.
FALSE. Some parents attempt to speak the majority language to their
child because they want their child to learn that language, even if they
themselves are not fluent in the majority language. This can mean that
conversations and interactions do not feel natural or comfortable between
parent and child. There is no evidence that frequent use of the second

language in the home is essential for a child to learn a second language
(10). Furthermore, without knowledge of a familys home language, a
child can become isolated from family members who only speak the home
language. Research shows that children who have a strong foundation in
their home language more easily learn a second language. Children are
also at great risk of losing their home language if it is not supported
continually at home.
How to Support your Bilingual Child

There are many ways to support your childs bilingualism:
Do what feels comfortable for you and your family. Dont try to speak a
language with your child if you are not comfortable or fluent In that
language
Dont worry if your child mixes his two languages. This is a normal part
of becoming bilingual Provide your child with many opportunities to
hear, speak, play, and interact in your home language.
If you think your child has a language delay, consult a speech
language pathologist for advice regarding the best ways to help your
child learn more than one language.
References
1. Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Census: Immigration, citizenship, language,

mobility and migration. Available online: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-
quotidien/071204/dq071204a-eng.htm
2. Toronto.ca. Torontos Racial Diversity. Available

online: http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_facts/diversity.htm
3. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Available online:http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96

4. American Speech Language Hearing Association. The Advantages of Being
Bilingual. Available
online:http://www.asha.org/about/news/tipsheets/bilingual.htm
5. Genesee, F. H. (2009). Early childhood bilingualism: Perils and

possibilities. Journal of Applied Research on Learning, 2 (Special Issue), Article
2, pp. 1-21.
6. Paradis, J. (2010). The interface between bilingual development and specific

language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 227-252.
7. Canadian Council on Learning (2008). Parlez-vous franais? The advantages of

bilingualism in Canada. Available online: http://www.ccl-
cca.ca/pdfs/LessonsInLearning/Oct-16-08-The-advantages-of-bilingualism.pdf
8. Poulin-Dubois, D., Blaye, A., Coutya, J & Bialystok, E. (2011). The effects of
bilingualism on toddlers executive functioning. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology. 108 (3), 567-579
9. Center for Applied Linguistics. Benefits of being bilingual. Available

online:http://www.cal.org/earlylang/benefits/marcos.html
10. Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. (2011). Dual Language Development and
Disorders: A handbook on bilingualism & second language learning. Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
11. Meisel, J. (2004). The Bilingual Child. In T. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), The
Handbook of Bilingualism. pp 91-113. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
12. Genesee, F. (2009). Early Childhood Bilingualism: Perils and

Possibilities. Journal of Applied Research in Learning, 2 (Special Issue), 2, 1-21.
13. Genesee, F., & Nicoladis, E. (2006). Bilingual acquisition. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz
(eds.), Handbook of Language Development. pp. 324-342. Oxford, Eng.:
Blackwell.
14. Tabors, P. (1997). One Child, Two Languages. Paul H Brookes Publishing.
15. Pearson, B.Z., Fernandez, S.C., Lewedeg, V., & Oller, D.K. (1997). The relation
of input factors to lexical learning by bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics,
18, 41-58.

16. Baker, C. & Prys Jones, S. (1998). The Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and
Bilingual Education. Toronto, Ontario: Multilingual Matters Inc.
17. Goldstein, B. & Kohnert, K. (2005). Speech, language and hearing in

developing bilingual children: Current findings and future directions. Language,
Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 264-267.
18. Flege, J.E. (1999). Age of Learning and Second Language Speech. In D.
Birdsong (ed.), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis.
pp. 101-131. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
19. King, K. & Fogle, L. (2006). Raising Bilingual Children: Common Parental
Concerns and Current Research. Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics. Retrieved October 24, 2011
fromhttp://www.cal.org/resources/digest/digest_pdfs/RaiseBilingChildi.pdf
5. Is earlier better?
Many people are familiar with the concept of a critical period for language
acquisition: the idea that humans are not capable of mastering a new language after
reaching a certain age. Researchers disagree about whether a critical period exists at all,
and they disagree about when this critical period may occurproposals range from age 5
to 15 (Krashen, 1973; Johnson & Newport, 1989; Lenneberg, 1967). Disagreement
aside, research on bilingualism and second language learning converges robustly on a
simple take-home point: earlier is better. There may not be a sharp turn for the worse at
any point in development, but there is an incremental decline in language learning
abilities with age (Birdsong & Molis, 2001; Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003). This
point is best understood as an interaction between biological and environmental factors.
Researchers have argued that biological change during the first two decades of life
results in a reduced capacity for learning and retaining the subtleties of language
(Johnson & Newport, 1989; Weber-Fox & Neville, 2001). In other words, our brains may

be more receptive to language earlier in life. But importantly, our environment is also
more conducive to language learning earlier in life. In many cultures and in many
families, young children experience a very rich language environment during the first
years of life. They hear language in attention-grabbing, digestible bundles that are
targeted skillfully at their developmental level (Fernald & Simon, 1984). Caregivers
typically speak in ways that are neither too simple nor too complex, and children receive
hours and hours of practice with language every day. This high-quality and high-quantity
experience with languagea special feature of how people communicate with young
childrenoften results in successful language learning. It gives children rich, diverse,
and engaging opportunities to learn about the sounds, syllables, words, phrases, and
sentences that comprise their native language. But beyond the first years of life, second
language learning often happens very differently. Older children and adults do not
usually have the same amount of time to devote to language learning, and they do not
usually experience the advantage of fun, constant, one-on-one interaction with native
speakers. Instead, they often find themselves in a classroom, where they get a small
fraction of the language practice that infants and toddlers get (Lew-Williams & Fernald,
2010). In classrooms, words are defined for them and grammar is described to them.
Defining and describing can be effective, but they are not as powerful as discovering
language from the ground up. Applied to bilingualism, these maturational and
environmental differences between younger and older learners indicate that it is most
advantageous to learn two languages early on in life. Bilinguals who learn two languages
from birth are referred to as simultaneous bilinguals, and those who learn a first language
followed by a second languagewhether as toddlers or as adultsare referred to as
sequential bilinguals. The evidence points to fairly robust advantages for simultaneous
bilinguals relative to sequential bilinguals. They tend to have better accents, more

diversified vocabulary, higher grammatical proficiency, and greater skill in real-time
language processing. For example, children and adults who learn Spanish as a second
language typically struggle to master Spanish grammatical gender (e.g., is it el gato or
la gato?), while people who learn Spanish and English from birth show reliable and
impressive ease in using grammatical gender (Lew-Williams & Fernald, 2007, 2010).
However, parents should not lose hope if they have not exposed their children to
each language from birth. Infants brains and learning environments are special and non-
recreatable, but there are many other ways to foster bilingual development. Here we
overview two possibilities. First, some parents (particularly those who can afford
childcare) choose to hire bilingual nannies or send children to bilingual preschools, in
order to maximize their childrens exposure to another language. This can certainly result
in increased bilingual proficiency, but it is essential to provide continued opportunities to
practice each language once the child is older. Parental expectations should be quite low
if children do not have opportunities to continue learning and using a language
throughout development. However, keep in mind that bilingual exposure does not
necessarily translate to being a bilingual who is able to understand and speak a language
fluently. Researchers generally consider a child to be bilingual if he or she receives at
least 10-25% of exposure to each language (Byers-Heinlein, under review; Place & Hoff,
2011; Marchman et al., 2010; Marchman, Martinez-Sussmann, & Dale, 2004), but this
level of exposure by no means guarantees functional bilingualism (De Houwer, 2007).
Second, there are language immersion programs in elementary schools in many of the
worlds countries, including the U.S. and Canada. Their goal is to promote bilingualism,
biliteracy, and multicultural proficiency among both language-majority and language-
minority students. In the U.S., hundreds of immersion programs have been established in
the last four decades in such languages as Spanish, French, Korean, Cantonese, Japanese,

Mandarin, Navajo, and Hebrew. There are currently 434 or more immersion programs in
31 U.S. states (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2011). French immersion programs are
available in all 10 Canadian provinces, with enrolment ranging from 2-32% of students
depending on the province (Statistics Canada, 2000). Immersion programs confer
advantages over other formats of language instruction that are typical in high school and
college classrooms. In immersion programs, the second language is not necessarily a
topic of instruction, but a vehicle for instruction of other curriculum subjects. In terms of
the quantity of language exposure, immersion classrooms do not rival infants language
environments. However, they often foster functional bilingualism, and equip children
with language skills that help them in later educational and professional contexts. The
take-home messages about bilingual language exposure are clear: more is better, and
earlier is better. If you are 75 years old and you have always wanted to learn Japanese,
start now. Language learning becomes more challenging with time, for both maturational
and environmental reasons, but for those who are motivated (Gardner & Lambert, 1959),
it is never too late to learn a new language.
Methods
Sample
Bilingual and SEI Students Across Arizona. A broad comparison was made
between all ELL students in Arizona enrolled in bilingual programs with all ELL
students in Arizona enrolled in SEI programs. Stanford-9 achievement data from 2003
were compared with t-tests in the areas of reading, mathematics, and language. These
comparisons were made at the grade level for second through eighth grades. The
bilingual group was 94.5% Hispanic, 1.5% White, and 2.5% Native American. Less than

1% of the bilingual students were either Black or Asian. The SEI group was 73.0%
Hispanic, 13.8% White,9.9% Native American, 1.2% Black, and 1.6% Asian Bilingual
and SEI Students from Spanish Speaking Homes. In Arizona, bilingual programs are
typically available only in the languages of Spanish and some Native American
languages. The sample sizes among students who spoke a specific Native American
language (e.g. Navajo) and were also enrolled in a bilingual or SEI program were not
large enough to allow statistical comparisons. However, the sample sizes among those
students for whom the primary language spoken at home is Spanish were sufficient to
make comparisons between SEI and bilingual program students. By filtering this
analysis through the element of Spanish as the primary language spoken in a students
home, the two groups became more directly comparable. 99.2% of the bilingual students
and 98.7% of the SEI students were Hispanic.
RESULT
In the general statewide comparison of bilingual and SEI programs, those
students in SEI programs significantly outperformed bilingual students in 24 out of 24
comparisons (p < .001). These data are shown in Table 1. The differences between mean
scale scores is relatively small through fifth grade (eleven or fewer points) but beginning
in sixth grade the gap widens (15 or more points). The difference between the scale
scores is reflected in the grade equivalency measure. Though students in SEI and
bilingual programs are no more than three months apart in the primary grades, bilingual
students are more than a year behind their SEI counterparts in seventh and eighth grade.
This disparity is consistent among the subjects of reading, mathematics, and language.
The comparison of students living in homes where Spanish is the primary language
yielded 19 of 24 cases significantly favoring SEI (p < .05). For the remaining five cases,
there was no significant difference between the two groups. Table 2 displays these data.

As with the general comparison, the This document is available on the Education Policy
Studies Lab website at http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/articles/EPRU-0408-66-
OWI.pdf students from Spanish speaking households demonstrate a consistent pattern in
favor of SEI programs. The difference between bilingual and SEI students is not as
dramatic between these groups as it was for the general comparison. However, as with
the general comparison, the gap in favor of SEI increases dramatically at the middle
grades.
METHODOLOGY The revitalization and maintenance of Aboriginal
languages is linked to linguistic human rights and larger issues of social justice, self-
determination, and autonomy (May, 2001; McCarty, 2003; Todal, 2003). Theorizations
of bilingual education are helpful in taking up these larger social issues, challenging and
critiquing the Us vs. Them discourse of othering, often associated with discussions
of language diversity in education. The sociocultural and sociostructural theories
advanced by Sonia Nieto (1996, 2002), Jim Cummins (1986, 1990, 1996, 2000, 2003),
Martin Nakata (1999), and Marcia Moraes (1996) do just that, going beyond
empirical considerations of language proficiency assessments and the promotion of the
best models for language acquisition to the political and cultural effects of power.
These theories significantly influenced the methodology of the present study.The
discourse analysis that follows examines Inuit languages across many layers of schooling
in Nunavut. What are teachers doing, thinking, and believing around the role of Inuit
languages in Nunavut schooling? What are their theories related to teaching and learning
in the Nunavut context? On a systemic level, how do teachers read all the government
initiatives and directives?


Sociolinguistics Thesis

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Sociolinguistics Thesis

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ABSTRACT

education largely a Latino issue.

is spoken. When thinking about bilingual education we are inclined to

think of a program designed to promote dual language proficiency in

students. However, in the Pakistan, most bilingual programs are

designed to facilitate transition from a non-English language into

Sociolinguistics Mubarak Ali Sra (BI-585544) Assignment No. 2 Page 1 of 37

competing assumptions of linguistic theory posit that (1) first-language knowledge

languages learned simultaneously that must be overcome. The political element

behind language development models reflects tensions between using

the model to develop a monolingual, common national culture for all

students, or a multilingual, cosmopolitan culture. Educational focus

refers to the primary purpose of the language development model:

academic content acquisition or language development. Transitional

bilingual education uses initial native language instruction for

academic exposure and gradually transitions the student to academic

instruction in English over a period of time. Once students develop

English proficiency they are transitioned into the academic

aretransitional bilingual education and structured English immersion. According to

Mitchell et al.(1999), language development models arise out of a combination of three

monolingual, common national culture for all students, or a multilingual, cosmopolitan

Sociolinguistics Mubarak Ali Sra (BI-585544) Assignment No. 2 Page 2 of 37

immersion. According to Porter, The goal is threefold: early literacy development in

inclusion of [English learner] students in mainstream classrooms for maximum exposure

to native speakers of English and for greater integration of diverse student

populations(Porter, 2000, p. 54). This model assumes interference between languages

English language learners in order to facilitate English proficiency.

The history of the debate on bilingual education is characterized by inattention to

research, if at all, haphazardly. Unsystematically, and without the desired thoroughness

or rigor. We therefore welcome this opportunity to outline the conclusions to be drawn

from research on bilingual education and bilingualism in children

Sociolinguistics Mubarak Ali Sra (BI-585544) Assignment No. 2 Page 3 of 37

and the transition to primary education is scarce. Th e existing empirical evidence is

governmental organizations, conference proceedings, and newsletters. This report draws

academic journals and books; government reports; publications and reports of

international (multilateral and bilateral) and regional development agencies, research

institutes and non-governmental organizations or networks; and correspondence with

coverage. Consideration was given to the documents below:

Convention against Discrimination on Education (1960);

The bulletin for the 2008 International Conference on Language Development,

Language Revitalization and Multilingual Education in Ethno linguistic Communities

Language Policy Website & Emporium.

Method of data analysis

Sociolinguistics Mubarak Ali Sra (BI-585544) Assignment No. 2 Page 4 of 37

THEORIES AND APPROACHES

language acquisition in childhood. Scholars in developmental psychology, linguistics,

said to be acquiring a second language.

Before reviewing understandings of language acquisition in childhood, it is

young childrens L2 acquisition calls for a distinctive approach to supporting L2

Sociolinguistics Mubarak Ali Sra (BI-585544) Assignment No. 2 Page 5 of 37

is has developed literacy in L1. Literacy entails the development of metalinguistic

clarifications indicate the complexities of bi/multilingual learning and instruction in

existing skills. Investigators of multilingual acquisition have underscored the need to

bilingual developmental norms, especially with respect to different levels of language

dominance (Yavas, 2007).

Language acquisition in childhood

dominated understandings about language acquisition. Following Skinner (1957), the

Sociolinguistics Mubarak Ali Sra (BI-585544) Assignment No. 2 Page 6 of 37

affects their learning (Hart & Risley, 1995).

More recently, developmental psychologists have applied contemporary theories

of learning to explain language acquisition. They argue that language is a uniquely

depends on the language environment effectively, a bicultural perspective.

Theories of second language acquisition

monolingual acquisition, resulting in more theory than empirical evidence. However,