The the role of the social environment in bilingual development

        

Social Interaction and Language Learning

Children are able to learn from many sources and in many ways, but as children become more socially mobile their social interactions become progressively anonymous, including non-family members and television (Berger and Luckman 1966; Harris, 1995). Rowe (1994) has suggested that it would not make evolutionary sense to take social learning cues from just one source – doing so could lead to the loss of innovatory skills from the surrounding environment. Immigrant families who move across geographical/linguistic borders provide examples where cultural/social differences outside the house impact on those inside the home.  Bialystok (1991) remarks that the immigrant family (or what Econompoulos (1994) refers to as ‘global nomads’) is placed as the ideal situation for bilingualism in a setting which provides ‘generous exposure across several social domains. Furthermore, parents in these families know the child needs to learn another language outside the family in order to assimilate into society and therefore use particular approaches to foster their language development (Harding-Esch and Bailey, 2003; Malave, 1997). It is in this sense that parents cause a shift in the social environment of the bilingual either for smooth transmission into a new culture or one dominated by political/social friction. Ultimately though, it is children who learn from the myriad of their social environments and because of this the study of bilingualism has been referred to not so much as a phenomenon of language, but of use (Romaine, 1989; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986).

Home Life

What are the effects of parents on the bilingual development of their children? Despite the numerous strategies of raising a child shown in bilingual studies, generally speaking, patterns of language development were found to be similar for both bilingual and monolingual children, in fact the ‘similarities are more striking than the differences’ (Harding-Esch and Riley, 2003:55).  Most of what we know about simultaneous bilingualism comes from studies based on linguists’ case studies on their own children; such as Leopold’s (1939-1949) study of his daughter’s early development, which highlighted the process of acquisition and development using the one parent one language approach (Bialystok 1991; Harding-Esch and Riley 2003; Romaine 1989).  Such studies show that while the social environmental factors are the same for monolingual and bilingual families, i.e. interactive language (Bialystok 1991; Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Romaine 1989), the social environment of the bilingual contains one extra language which s/he must learn to differentiate between. The strategies for adapting to this phenomenon can be explained cognitively (Hamers and Blanc, 1989), contextually (Harris, 1995; Tomasello 2003) and socially (Bialystok, 1991; Harris 1995). Overlapping all of these processes is the pattern of ‘habitualization’ which Berger and Luckman define as any repeated action that ‘becomes cast as a pattern’ (p.53). For the bilingual child the role of ‘predictability’ within their social environment can facilitate the learning two languages simultaneously.  For bilingualism to develop, predictability can mean ‘one parent one language, or’ two languages two cultures’.

The importance of a stable and predictable linguistic environment is a theme which emerges from most of the literature on bilingualism (Schieffelin & Ochs 1986; Hoffman 1991; Harding-Esch and Riley 2003; Ochs 1988; Romaine 1989) even where it is not necessary for a child to have a bilingual home in order to become a bilingual. Harding-Esch and Riley (2003) examined eighteen case studies in which ‘linguistic family portraits’ (p.95) were compared. What emerged from these studies was the uniqueness of each situation and the finite complex interactions that exist according to the various dyads. The authors illustrate a successful (two languages two cultures approach) bilingual case whereby a child experiences language from one country for nine months a year and another country for the remaining period. Habitualization of use was a constant variable in all the environments of the bilingual – either through one language one person principle or a strategy of two languages two cultures (ibid.). Providing there was a constant level of language exposure Harding-Esch and Riley found successful bilingual families. The one danger of the two languages two cultures approach is that any contact withdrawal from the other country owing to family changes can also result in a loss of bilingual development; however this serves as a reminder of the importance of parent’s attitude and stability to learning in and outside the home.

Outside the Family

Whilst the family is the most important transmitter of knowledge for the child (particularly in the early years) clearly there are other influences beside the parents. Here we discuss three views that stress the importance of social environment outside of the family with reference to (1) immigrant families, (2) socialization theory and (3)  some empirical evidence from Creole languages.

Valorization of Languages

Rowe (1994) has expressed the idea that children have an innate mechanism which directs them to learn from many sources, not just parents. In the case of immigrants living in new cultures simultaneous child bilingual development could be explained by the constant use of L2 in one sphere; namely school, and the use of L1 in the home. Such acceptance of a second language requires valorization from the parents’ language in which the child can develop a ‘shared representation’ of the world (Hamer and Blanc 1983:76). Such a case is described in Harding-Esch and Riley’s (2003) bilingual case study of two parents who speak Arabic to their son at home but who allow him to receive his education in French.  This serves as an example of equal symmetry which can exist between two languages, but social environment can equally portray a non-dominant language negatively. While there are examples of countries which do confer equal status on two languages (French in Canada, Welsh in Wales, Flemish in Belguim), some liberal nations actively oppose plurality of languages, by declaring English the official language in some American states (Hoffman 1991), and fuelling on ongoing debate about which languages should be taught in countries with a multicultural mix. Such politicization can pose threats to languages and even cause language shift (Hoffman 1991).  In emerging new nations the selection of a language has an important part in nation building and a linguistic minority can find itself politically suppressed by an elite group (ibid.). Such dramatic changes serve one language in favour of another and the group which is affected most is the minority group. The social environment then is a place where bilingualism can either be encouraged or suppressed according to political values.

Socialisation

One of the major tools used in socialization is language and for a bilingual child ‘language socialization is particularly important’ (Garcia, 2004:3).  For this reason the bilingual’s development cannot be envisaged independently from society or culture (Hamers and Blanc, 1989:115).  Nor is the individual a passive agent in his socialization, rather he is an active participant capable of building his own classification schemes or stock knowledge (Berger and Luckmann, 1966).

Socialization theory has been used to explain how exposure to language situations can facilitate bilingualism. Socialization is seen as the interface between social networks, and it is through this interaction that a child shapes its own internalization of language (Hamers and Blanc, 1989).  Early studies by Piaget showed that children’s cognitive development was not marked by passive assimilation but by constructing their own knowledge through interaction with their social environment (Piaget, 1959). In the same way social networks can reinforce bilingual development by transmitting positive shared representations of the language. Hamers and Blanc (1989) state that the type of bilinguality a child develops depends on the shared representation that his network transmits. If a child belongs to a dominant group which does not valorize other languages, it is likely that the child will remain monolingual (Hamers and Blanc, 1989).

An example of a negative bilingual experience shows that it can affect bilingual development as in the case reported by Harding-Esch and Riley (2003). As a result of using some Arabic at a French school a bilingual child found herself the subject of racist remarks and insisted she did not wish to speak Arabic even at home – although this was soon ameliorated

Whilst socialization in the home is a dyadic process, socialization outside the home is a group process (Harris, 1995). Group socialisation theory (Turner, 1987) maintains that humans can belong simultaneously to many groups with a corresponding shift in allegiance from one to another (Harris, 1995).  The ability to compartmentalise people into groups was observed by Piaget from a very young age, specifically for age and sex (but not race).  This ability translates to the ability of the bilingual to adapt towards their environment and their interlocutors. A clear example of this is within immigrant families which as a matter of linguistic survival expect different behaviour in the home and outside the home; in this way bilingual children develop a shared representation of the world which valorizes and relativizes (Hamers and Blanc 1989:76) the use of different languages by bilinguals. An example of linguistic versatility is from Hawaii which forms our third example of the role of social environment on bilingual development. Studies on communities in Hawaii by Bickerton (Pinker, 1994 ) illustrated how children were able to develop a language which was not learned from their parents, but developed by the children themselves. Despite almost total exposure to pidgin languages the language created by the children filled in the syntactic structures missing in the pidgin language (Tomasello, 2003).  Creoles show further evidence how social environment can create the condition for bilingualism and how children can make a language out of very unpromising materials (Pinker, 1994) as well as demonstrating how social environment defines the type of language choice by a bilingual speaker.  

Schooling

The notion that parents hold primary responsibility for nurturing and educating the young in skills of language is widely embraced by mainstream educationalists (Ochs, 1988; Eisler 2000). But a bilingual’s development cannot be envisaged independently, as  it is also thorough interactions with caregivers and professionals within their social and cultural milieus that children become linguistically and culturally competent.  Drawing on work by Vygotsky, learning was identified as a social activity involving not only the child but necessarily involving peers and adults. According to Vygotsky, social interaction enables development and it is through larger society that language becomes an integral part of the learning process (Vygotsky, 1986). In order to function successfully in any society we have to learn to interact across borders that constitute the diversity of a community, which includes school. Indeed, one of society’s main socialising instruments is the school (Romaine, 1989), which plays an essential role in (1) valorizing or devalorizing languages and (2) fostering bilingual societies through immersion programs (such as in Canada in which children receive content instruction in a language other than their L1).

Research into the effect of education on bilingualism, particularly immersion programs present an interesting picture in assessing how schools can affect bilingual development.  Immersion programs have been extensively reported (Cummins, 1981; Cenoz, & Genesee 1998), and the results mixed; with some arguing that learning two languages adversely affects the development of both languages (Cummins, 1981) and others showing that first language development is in no way affected by second language immersion programs - in some cases even outperforming English-only counterparts (Cummins, 1986). Such a contradiction is, according to Hoffman (1991) attributable to subtractive bilingualism, but more importantly perhaps is the proof that fact that bilingualism requires more than exposure, it requires an acceptance by the community in the form of positive identification both with a child’s first and second language.

For some the idea of schools promoting bilingualism runs contrary to their purpose of socialising individuals, and some argue it could perpetuate separatism (New York Times, 2006). At worst, if the goal of bilingualism were left to government education policy it could disappear completely, as is evident from reports of ‘chronic declines’ (BBC NEWS, 2005, 28 February) of language learning in schools.  One further caveat with entrusting bilingual development to schools is the danger that language development can easily slip or vanish if not used consistently in a social setting (Harding-Esch and Riley, 2003). The role of immersion programs usually supports minority languages for a limited period after which time maintenance of the L2 is dependent on home and community efforts (Hoffman, 1991).

Conclusion

The social environment consists of all those elements that affect our immediate physical surroundings, social relationships, and cultural milieus. We have argued the importance of both parental and external actors in providing important roles within this environment for bilingual development. Particularly important is that of a stable and predictable linguistic environment. Simultaneous bilingualism involves the development of two languages learnt parallel to each other, and this presupposes conscious effort by parents (Malave, 1997) to valorize each language acquired by a bilingual child. Berger and Luckmann’s assertion that ‘the process of becoming social man takes place in an interrelationship with a social environment’ (Berger, 1968:48) is one that we can apply to bilingual development.  By using ideas from Socialization Theory we have explained how constant exposure to different language situations (family, peers, and schools) can facilitate and encourage bilingualism. It is through these social interactions that a child shapes its own internalization of language and extends them to a network well outside the family; in some circumstances developing a language which was not learned from their parents. But even with constant use within one environment unless minority languages receive valorization from communities and families, successful bilingualism will not arise. Finally, bilingualism cannot be attributed to a product of any one social variable, but stems from a development and continuation of knowledge spanning through multiple interactions with the social environment. For this reason bilingualism has been referred to not so much as a phenomenon of language, but of use (Romaine, 1989; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986), in which social and individual boundaries construct what becomes a bilingual’s ‘stock knowledge’. This is summed up concisely by social representation theorists who emphasise that ‘the kind of person one is is less significant than the kind of situation in which one finds oneself in.’ (Walmsley, 2004:3).

 2995 words

                

        Bibliography

Bambi, S. (1989). Language Socialization across Cultures. Cambridge University Press. London

Bialystock, E. (1991) Language Processing in Bilingual Children. Cambridge University Press

Berger, P & Luckmann, T. (1966) Social Construction of Reality: A Treaty in the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor Books, New York

Barnett E, Casper, M. (2001).  A definition of the social environment. American Journal of Public Health 91(3):465.

Cenoz, J & Genesee, F. (Eds.) (1998) Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education.  Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Cummins, J. (1981).  The role of primary language Development in Promoting Educational Success for Language Minority Students in California.  State Department of Education

Cummins, J and Swain, M. (1986) Bilingualism in Education. Longman, London.

Eisler, R. (2000) Tomorrow's Children: A Blueprint for Partnership Education for the 21st Century, Westview Press

Garcia, P. (2004). Language Socialization during Family Meals in Paraguay. Stanford University.

Harding-Esch, E and Riley, P. (2003) The Bilingual Family: A Handbook for Parents. Cambridge University Press.

Harris, J. (1995) Where is the Child’s Environment? A Group Socialization Theory of Development.  Psychological Review. Vol. 102, No. 3, 458-489

Hoffman, C. (1991) An Introduction to Bilingualism.  Longman  London

Lam, A. (2001) Bilingualism. Chapter 13. Cited in Carter, R & Nunan, D. (2001). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.  Cambridge University Press.

Malave, L. (1997). Parent Characteristics: Influences in the Development of Bilingualism in Young Children. NYSABE Journal, 1997. University of Buffalo.

Ochs, E. (1988). Language Acquisition and Language Socialization in a Samoan Village. Culture and Language Development. Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language (6). Cambridge University Press. Bath

Peters , A & Boggs, S. (1986)  Interactional Routines as Cultural influences upon language Acquisition.  Cited in Schieffelin & Ochs (Eds) (1986).

Piaget, J. (1959) The Language and Thought of the Child. Routledge Classics, London

Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. Penguin, UK

Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism.  2nd Edition., Oxford: Blackwell

Rowe, S (1994) The Limits of Family Influence: Genes, experience, and behavior. Guilford Press. New York

Schieffelin & Ochs (Eds) (1986), Language Socialization across Cultures.  Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language No.3. Cambridge University Press.

Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a Language: A Useage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press

Turner, J. C. (with Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell,

M. S.). (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

Vygotsky, L. (Edited by Kozulin, A). (1986). Thought and Language. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachuusetts.

Walmsley, C. (2004).  Social Representations and the study of profeesional practice.  International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3 (4), Article 4.  Retrieved 10th August from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_4/html/walmsley.html

---