The nature of dual-language programs

[R. A. Stegemann]

Hi everyone again!

With the assumption that others besides Miriam and me are still
interested in the subject I will push forward in my ignorance about
dual-language programs.

My interest is not about code switching per se, but the quality of the
language that results from dual-language programs and the social
ramification that eventually result.

Miriam appears to think that peer discipline and role modeling together
are enough to ensure the integrity of each language. For the moment, I
remain skeptical. Certainly with properly selected teachers and
native-speaking parents the children would have no dearth of role
models for their own native tongue. In the classroom, however, they
would only have teachers as models for their non-native tongue.
Moreover, these latter would have to compete with the attention of each
student's peer group which would likely consist of monolingual cores
with some bilingual fluency and bilingual buffer groups with good
fluency in each language -- well, at least for their level of
educational development. Add to this the creativity of children and
what is likely to result, if not linguistic invention and all of the
problems associated with it as the child claims professional competency
in his non-native language, when he grows up.

Sincerely,

R. A. Stegemann
EARTH's Manager and HKLNA-Project Director
EARTH - East Asian Research and Translation in Hong Kong
http://homepage.mac.com/moogoonghwa/earth/hklna/
Tel/Fax: 852 2630 0349

By the way, my international nickname is Hamo, and you are welcome to
use it as my first name on this mailing list. See
<http://homepage.mac.com/moogoonghwa/hamo/nick1.html>

On 11 Oct 2004, at 21:24, Miriam E Ebsworth wrote:

>
>
> Dear RA,
>
> I can appreciate your concerns.
> It's certainly true that contact between language communities often
> results in code switching/mixing. And extensive contact can lead to
> borrowing, as you have noted. But just as non-natives benefit from
> speaking L2 to each other- usually without learning each others'
> errors- non-natives will benefit from native input both from teachers
> in the classroom and from native peers.  In such situations, it's even
> more unlikely that natives will learn non-native errors. And good
> programs will provide lots of native models and input, in and out of
> the classroom.
>
> Most code switching is done by individuals who have a shared good
> command of 2 languages, but know they are participating in a speech
> event in which both languages are understood by fellow interlocutors.
> Crutching- or using the alternate language due to lack of competence-
> does happen, but is not the main reason for switching. Solidarity,
> humor, capturing just the right nuance- are more frequent functions of
> switches.
>
> And allocating substantial dedicated time to each language is an
> important part of any good bilingual program.
> Not every dual language program does this in the same way. Some start
> off with the 2 language groups sharing only a small number of classes
> while they acquire the building blocks of the alternate language.
> Others have everybody together all the time from the start. And there
> are intermediate positions.
>
> You also touch on the issue of discourse domains. I can think of
> Chinese English speakers who know the language of technology in
> English a lot better than I do- in any language. So I would guess that
> each program needs to ascertain what kinds of discourse and topics of
> discourse will be needed by the learners in each language.  And of
> course, in any bilingual program issues of language supremacy come
> into play.
>
> It's great to have this forum so that we can explore ideas, research
> and terminology.
>
> Best,
> Miriam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3769 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20041012/1f01e479/attachment.bin>