The nature of dual-language programs

Tue Oct 12 17:50:02 UTC 2004

Dear R.A.,

Any dual language program worth its salt and that has as a true purpose
of developing proficiency in both L1 and L2 (first and second languages)
will engage in structured language acquisition and development
strategies within the academic program, both through L1 Language Arts
and L2 Language Arts as well as within and among other content areas (L1
and L2 language development strategies should be found systematically
throughout the academic program).  This occurs through instruction by
teachers who may be designated langauge role models.  Beyond that, I
would suggest that it is not merely ad hoc social interactions of
children and the negotiations of meaning that take place that would
positively influence L1 and L2 proficiency, but also the activities that
teachers *structure* specifically for the purposes of creating enriching
L1 and L2 interactions among students from both primary language groups
(both within and between the groups).

Your question, however, is an empirical one and can be tested (though,
of course, programs studied should be controlled for the quality and
integrity of their program design and not merely the nominal label they
give themselves as a "bilingual" or "dual language" programs).  Some of
the studies previously cited look at this issue.  If anything the
concern I have heard voiced most often is that the language minority
students, who, are, for many bilingual and dual language advocates the
students we need to be most concerned about as being traditionally
underserved are the ones who still don't experience as positive and
strong a dual language and academic program as their native
English-speaking peers in the program (who may be, and often are, from
higher SES households).  A prominent scholar of bilingual education
wrote about this concern 6 or 7 years ago in a Harvard Ed Review article
(the scholar is Guadalupe Valdes, and the citation: Harvard Educational
Review, 67(3), 391-429, Dual Language Programs: A Cautionary Note
Concerning the Education of Language-Minorty Students).

Aside from that, from a brain research perspective, recent studies seem
to indicate that the problems you mention about invented language and/or
code switching and/or diluted language development because of these
varied interactions often don't materialize.  Rather second (or more)
language learners seem to properly separate languages they learn, even
when these are mixed or they have multiple adult role models using
different languages, etc..  And, importantly, the child's  language
choices (how they speak: whether in L1 or L2 or some hybrid or inventive
variant) has less to do with being confused about the languages and has
more to do with the situated contexts they find themselves in and who
they are talking to.  They appropriately adjust their language to their
audience and the context, but they do it right.  So you may here
inventive language in one context but should not necessarily take that
as an indication the child couldn't use their L1 and L2 as you would
expect or want them to in yet another context.

But I would tend to agree that if programs don't formally attend to
developing academic language competencies in both L1 and L2, then
students may not reach higher levels of professional or academic
language proficiency.  But that is what the programs are SUPPOSED to be
doing, and so they should be doing that as an integral part of their
design.  So we can also talk about the differences in language
proficiency that occur between dual-language programs of lesser and
higher quality; it is not simply a question of whether dual language, as
a monolithic program category, is successful at that or not.

Just my two cents.

In Peace,
K.

R. A. Stegemann wrote:

> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20041012/6c5c09e7/attachment.htm>