Scribd
Upload
17 views4 pages

Sdoc 11 20 Si

Uploaded by

pyroarchon141
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
17 views4 pages

Sdoc 11 20 Si

Uploaded by

pyroarchon141
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

L3 Linguistics

Department of English
University of Hassiba Benbouali, Chlef
Lecturer: Dr. A. Babou

Course 6: Bilingualism

The concept of ‘Bilingualism’

Bloomfield (1933: 55) defined bilingualism as "native-like control of two languages",


while, in contrast, Mackey (1962: 52) defined bilingualism as “the ability to use more than
one language”. In a similar vein to Mackey, Weinreich (1968) defined bilingualism as “the
practice of alternately using two languages" while Haugen (1953:7) proposed “the point
where a speaker can first produce complete meaningful utterances in the other language” to
be a starting point for defining bilingualism. These definitions range from Bloomfield’s
firm expectations of balanced bilingualism to Mackey’s and Weinreich and Haugen’s
looser requirements of simple ability of using two languages. Beatons-Beardsmore (1982)
described these two extremes as minimalist (Mackey, Weinreich) and maximalist
(Bloomfield) in approach. Haugen’s view could also be considered minimalist, including as
it does the qualification that the utterances have to be ‘complete’ and ‘meaningful’ .
On the other hand, the maximalist approach describes the ideal bilingual who will
find no match in reality. If we examine the experience of bilinguals around us, we quickly
realize that bilinguals do not, and cannot, function like two monolinguals. In fact,
Speakers’ degree of competence in both languages is greatly influenced by the way each
language is used and this differs greatly from individual to individual. Moreover, how do
we decide who is the ideal representative of a native-speaker in each language?
How, then, can we measure degree of bilingualism?
Macnamara (1969) emphasized the need to discuss the degree of bilingualism not as a
unitary component but as degree of competence in sub-components. The sub-components are the
four macro skills (speaking, writing, reading and listening). Competence in bilingualism is seen as
a continuum with individuals showing varying degrees of competence in each of the macro skills.
Meanwhile, it is important to examine bilingual abilities in various skill contexts rather than trying
to d e t e r m i n e a specificlevel of bilingualism.

1
Several terms such as balanced bilinguals, dominant bilinguals, recessive bilinguals and
semilinguals have been used to categorise bilinguals according to the perceived degree of
proficiency they have in both languages.

Balanced bilinguals
The term balanced bilingual was first used by Lambert, Havelka and Gardner (1959)
Canada to describe individuals who are fully competent in both languages. In most
instances, when the term balanced bilingual is used, it describes those who are thought to
have perfect control of both languages in all settings. Though it is possible to come across
bilinguals who are highly proficient in both languages, Baetens-Beardsmore (1982) argued
that balanced bilingualism is close to impossible to achieve, and is therefore very rare.
Even high-level conference interpreters tend to have a preference for one of their
languages, and will often specialize in interpreting into their dominant language despite the
fact that they are highly fluent in both languages.
Fishman (1972) argued that sociolinguistic forces demand that bilinguals organize
their languages in functionally complementary spheres. For example, a German- French
bilingual may be able to speak both languages fluently, but is likely to use German
exclusively in certain situations or when discussing specific topics. Fishman emphasized
that it is this complementary nature of language functions that assures the continued
existence of bilingualism, because any society which produces bilinguals who use both
languages with equal competence in all contexts will stop being bilingual, as no society
needs two languages to perform the same set of functions. In other words, balanced
bilingualism necessarily entails the death of bilingualism.

Dominant bilinguals
The term dominant bilingual refers to bilinguals who are dominant in one language. In the
context of discussing dominant bilinguals, researchers will often refer to their less
dominant language as the subordinate language. However, one important criterion to note
is that the term “dominance” may not apply to all domains. So, someone who is dominant
in French may not exhibit this dominance in all areas. For example, a French-German
computer scientist may speak French most of time except when he is discussing computer-
science related topics as he did his training in computer science in German. In cases where
specialist jargon (medicine, sports) is required, speakers may consciously choose to speak
in the language they normally use when discussing these kinds of topics.

Passive or recessive bilinguals


The term passive or recessive bilinguals refers to bilinguals who are gradually losing
competence in one language, usually because of disuse. As the term “recessive” seems to

2
have negative connotations, we will use the term ‘passive bilinguals’ to describe this group
of bilinguals. For example, a Dutch migrant in Australia may find himself isolated from
the Dutch speaking community as his daily encounters are with English speaking
Australians. Over time, his proficiency level in Dutch may deteriorate due to the long
period of non-use.
In bilingual communities which are undergoing a shift from one language to another
(usually from the home language to the dominant language in the society), it is not
uncommon to see bilinguals who can only understand, but cannot speak, the other
language. So in the Australian context, many older Italians still speak Italian, or an Italian
dialect, to their children and grandchildren. However, these second (children) or third
(grandchildren) generation Italians may reply to their parents/grandparents in English. This
is because Italian is gradually being replaced by English for the second and third
generation Italians (Cavallaro 1998; Bettoni 1985) who are living in an English-speaking
community, and being educated in English. Thus, this group of children grows up with an
increasingly passive understanding of Italian and often does not use the language actively
at all. In such contexts, passive bilingualism, the ability to understand but not produce
meaningful utterances, is often contrasted with active bilingualism, the productive use of
both languages.

Semilinguals, or limited bilinguals


The issue of bilinguals who appear to have limited level of proficiency in both first and
second language has dominated some discussions on the issue of degree of bilingualism.
The term semilingualism was first used by Hansegard (1968, cited in Baker 2006: 9) to
refer to Finnish minority students in Sweden who lack proficiency in both their languages.
Hansegard described semilingualism in terms of deficit in six language competences:
 Size of vocabulary
 Correctness of language
 Unconscious processing of language (automatism)
 Language creation (neologization)
 Mastery of the functions of language (e.g. emotive, cognitive)
 Meanings and imagery
According to these parameters, a semilingual is both quantitatively and qualitatively
deficient in comparison to monolinguals, and semilingualism has been blamed for the low
academic achievement of minority children. Over the years, the term has accumulated
pejorative connotations and researchers who invoked the use of this concept have been
widely rebutted (cf. Baetens-Beardsmore 1982, Edelsky et al. 1983, Genesee 1984,
Spolsky 1984, Baker 2006) for ignoring the socio-political concerns implicit in the
existence of semilinguals. These authors argued that semilingualism is rooted in an
environment which is not conducive to ongoing bilingualism, where the speakers were
socially, politically and economically disadvantaged. Therefore, semilingualism is a
situation which is engineered by the environment and not a consequence of bilingualism
since a monolingual in the same environment would have faced the same degree of
struggle in their academic endeavours.

References
Bloomfield, L, . (1933). Language. New York: Holt.
Haugen, , E, . (1953). The Norwegian language in America: A study of bilingual behavior.
philadelphia: university of Pennsylvanina Press.Google Scholar
3
Haugen, , E, (1973). Bilingualism, language contact, and immigrant languages in the United States. A
research report 1956–1970. In Sebeok 1973. [Reprinted in Fishman 1978: 1–111].Google Scholar
Mackey, F. W. (1962). The description of bilingualism. In J. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the
sociology of language (554–584). The Hague: Mouton.
Weinreich, U. (1968). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.

You might also like