It should be understood that these definitions take into account a single dimension of bilinguality, the fluency of the language, and not any non-linguistic factors. Other definitions are found that may give other views to the term. For example, Grosjean (1982) is of the opinion that “far too much weight has been put on fluency, to the detriment of other factors, such as
the regular use of two languages, their domains of use, and the bilingual’s need to have certain skills (reading and writing, for instance) in one language but not in the other. A linguistic description of the bilingual that takes into account such factors is more complex than a simple index of fluency, but it is also more valid”.
The tests used in some of the experiments have been criticised by other experts of the subject. Different exercises that measure the fluency of the languages on a bilingual person with distinct tasks such as picture naming, word completition, oral reading or following instructions among others, have been practised on bilingual subjects. According to Jakobovits (1969), a test that compares the difference on the speed response on the two languages might not be reliable because they do not consider different domains in which the language is used.
The domain in which the languages are used is a really important factor to determinate the level of proficiency in the languages since most bilingual individual will use a different language for determinate situations. Cooper (1971) finds that Spanish-English bilinguals score very differently in word-naming tasks depending on the domain the words fall into. In some domains they would have been considered balanced bilinguals but in others they would not.
The critique that Malherbe does is on how bilingualism is measured, he does not believe in analysing bilingualism discontextualised, “The only practical line of approach… is to assess bilingualism in terms of certain social and occupational demands of a practical nature in a particular society. Here again the criterion is to be “bilingualism for what”.”.
According to Grosjean. G (1982), bilinguals use each language when the situation requires it, so they may use language A for some occasions and language B in other determined circumstances. “A bilingual develops the four basic skills in each language (speaking, listening. Reading, and writing) to the levels required by the environment, and it is rare that an identical level is needed for each skill”.
Another polemic found within the bilingualism subject is related to make a distinction in the bilingual’s cognitive organisation level. Researchers find distinct ways to select the different categories. Weinreich (1968) makes three different categories or groups: coordinate, compound and subordinate, taking into account every aspect of language such as phonetics, syntax and lexical. Coordinate bilinguals possess two lexicons and two different sets of expression, one for each language and functions as two monolinguals.
Compound bilinguals have one lexicon but two ways of expression and subordinate bilinguals have one lexicon and two ways of expression although the weaker language words are interpreted through the words in the stronger language.
Another view made by Ervin and Osgood (1954) includes compound and subordinate bilinguals in the same group and considers only the lexic aspect of the language, describing coordinate bilinguals as the ones that use the two languages without interchanging them, each language is for a specific situation. In the other group, compound bilinguals, are included the individuals that switch from one language to the other using languages interchangeably in any context. While Lambert, Havelka and Crosby (1958) define coordinate bilingualism as the one where the language is acquired for different uses in different contexts, and switching from one language to the other is not a common practice. Compound bilingualism is when the languages are acquired interchangeably.
Another interesting view is that one Jakobovits and Lambert give after a language satiation experiment. The experiment shows that in coordinate bilinguals, the two languages work as different systems without affecting one another, while compound bilinguals show interference between the two languages.
An opposing viewpoint held by Olton (1960) shows that: “no difference was found between compound and coordinate bilinguals”.
Nowadays, researchers do not feel that strong about the coordinate and compound distinction. The experiments done in old days were criticised by other researchers because of different reasons such as: by which criterion the individuals were selected to do the experiment Segalowitch (1977), or the data used in the experiments that was qualified as isolated and with no ability to show enough evidence, Macnamara (1967).
Another division that is found within the bilingualism subject apart from the balanced and unbalanced differentiation or the coordinate and compound distinction is the difference between sequential and simultaneous bilingualism. The acquisition of two languages can be achieved for different reasons. Sometimes bilingual couples and couples in where only one of the members is bilingual decide to rise their child as bilingual. There are different strategies that can be taken such as the “one person one language” proposed by Grammont or one language at home and the other outside the home among others. Another way of child bilingualism acquisition is when the parents do not plan the phenomenon but it comes naturally because of the environment (a bilingual one) or because of other factors such as emigration. Early bilingualism normally occurs when the child needs to communicate with those people that play an important role in the child’s life, if he/she needs to use two different languages to communicate with parents, playmates and teachers, the child will probably learn two languages.
Two main types of language acquisition by bilingual children can be found; simultaneous and sequential or successive, the line that divides between both according to McLaughing (1984) is age three. Therefore a child will be considered simultaneous bilingual if he/she has acquired both languages before age three or sequential bilingual if the second language has been acquired after age three. But this is a rather arbitrary, it can be considered simultaneous acquisition when the child starts learning to communicate using both languages, although, if a child starts using one language and after two years he is introduced to another language, he would be learning them both simultaneous and sequential at the same time. The cut off point then is ambiguous and not all the researchers agree with McLaughling.
According to Hamers and Blanc (2000) simultaneous bilinguality is when a child learns two languages as his mother tongues while sequential bilinguality is when the child learns one language first and before age four or five he/she acquires basic skills in the second language.
To analyse simultaneous acquisition, diaries kept by parents of bilingual children have been explored in order to give a view about the phenomenon. In most of the cases the children have been brought up by the “one person one language” strategy. In one of the studies provided by Leopold (1970) it is shown how his daughter brought up by the “one person one language” strategy, goes through different stages. In the first one, from birth to two years, a mixture between English and German is found. The girl could not separate the two languages addressing to
monolingual English or German people. The second stage was characterised by the start that the child made in acknowledging the existence of the two languages and in the last stage she developed the knowledge of the difference of the two languages and she begun to use them separately.
Some researchers defend that bilingual children go through different stages before mastering both languages, as it has been seen in the example before. Others believe that children have the capacity to keep both languages separate as two different systems within the language system itself. Bergman (1976) and Padilla and Liebman (1975) defend this latter position. Their report of their studies results found bilingual children making very few mixed utterances compounding words of both languages. Other researchers that support this hypothesis are Pavlovich (1920) that after studying the language development in his son, reports that he “mastered Serbian and French phonological systems at the same time and without confusion”
Bergman (1976) proposes a rather interesting theory for bilingual children that produce mixed utterances and proposes that happens not because of the incapability of the child to differentiate the systems but due to mixed input.
Another position is held but researchers that support the theory based in children going through a first stage where they just have one language system that combines both before differentiating the two systems.
Swain (1972) proposes that children first just have a set of rules for both languages and slowly they start identifying which rule is for which language. Volterra and Taeschner (1978) believe in a slightly different theory where the bilingual child goes through three different stages; starting with one lexical system that both languages share, then the child reaches the stage where two lexicons are differentiated sharing just one grammar system and by the third stage the differentiated grammars have been acquired.
To sum up, the controversy in defining the bilingualism phenomenon is found in the qualities that need to be examined in order to give an evaluation of an individual’s bilingualism. As seen in this essay, different researchers focus on the level of fluency in the languages making a differentiation between balanced and unbalanced bilinguality. Other researchers consider that to define the phenomenon other factors should be taken into consideration such us the regular uses of the languages, or in which domains they are used. The distinction made between coordinate, compound and subordinate bilingualism has been examined as well as the simultaneous and sequential difference in acquisition of the languages in bilingual children. After exploring the subject it has become evident that the complexity of the different theories cannot be summed up in a short definition that just includes the idea of that a bilingual individual is one who speaks two languages.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- <<Bilinguality and Bilingualism>> Hamers, J. and Blanc, M. Cambridge University Press 2000
- <<Life with two languages. An Introduction to Bilingualism>> Grosjean, F. Harvard University Press 1982
- <<Language Contact and Bilingualism>> Appel, R and Muyesken, P. Routledge 1987
- Collins English Dictionary, 2002
- <<Theories of Second-Language Learning>> McLaughling, B Eduard Arnold 1987.
- <<Second-Language Acquisition in Childhood>> McLaughling, B Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers 1978.
