Linguistic development of bilingual children in simultaneous language acquisition

Childhood Second Language Learning and Subtractive Bilingualism

During the past five decades, the phenomenon of understanding how language is acquired has intrigued historians, theorists and scholars alike. Although language learning can occur at many different stages in one's lifetime, the vast bulk of the research has focused on children who grow up learning one language in the home (L1), while simultaneously learning the second language (L2), usually as a result of schooling. One of the main issues addressed most frequently is whether bilingual children are able to differentiate and keep the linguistic systems of their two languages apart from each other in the context of simultaneous acquisition (Bolonyai, 1998). Additional research has pointed out that young bilingual children may not maintain their languages balanced and intact because the bilingual development does not occur in a socially stable environment. This perspective theorizes that bilingual acquisition may result in various types and degrees of bilingualism depending on the social context in which the two languages are acquired and used. This paper will evaluate four such studies that deal with the linguistic development of bilingual individuals.

Bilingual language acquisition is worthy of attention for practical, clinical and theoretical reasons. In addition to merely promoting full normal development and treating pathological development, an understanding of language acquisition is important due to the fact that bilingual children comprise a majority of the population, an amount which is steadily increasing. Research in these areas is lacking, and as a result, there exists little theoretical understanding of the manner in which two languages are acquired simultaneously and the resulting affects. Such research also allows for an examination of the manner in which the human brain functions in regard to language learning and simultaneous language acquisition. Thus, research is needed to uncover the facts and reconcile general theories of acquisition with the facts (Genesee, 2001).

This topic is also worthy of attention because bilingual children may either master one language over the other, resulting in an imbalanced language competency, or may not master either language, and become linguistically incompetent as a result of the simultaneous acquisition of two languages. As the analysis of the four articles indicates, the knowledge of two or more languages in early childhood does not contribute to language deficiency or deficient intellectual development. Such research would no doubt assist parents and the educational system in making decisions regarding which language to raise their children speaking, or whether to preserve their native language by teaching the children two languages.

Although both theory and research on learning and instruction have advanced in recent years, only a small share of this work specifically addresses the educational needs of the increasingly diverse student population. Additionally, the most of the literature in this area focuses on children in elementary or secondary school, not the growing share of children whose first experience with school occurs at 3 or 4 years of age. Many suggestions for research have been made, however more studies must be conducted to obtain a truly thorough understanding. Such research is extremely important, because children whose home backgrounds do not correspond to the norms, expectations, and language of their schools negotiate two, sometimes more cultures on a daily basis. These children can serve as translators for their family, their neighbors, and their teachers and classmates. Finally, these studies are worthy of attention due to the fact that only rarely bilingual children are studied in more than one context.

II. Analysis

Bolonyai Research

Bolonyai (1998) argued that structural processes in language contact are operating at and determined by abstract levels of lexical structure; these levels include lexical-conceptual structure, predicate-argument structure, and morphological patterns of such structure. Bolonyai examined the structural effects of intensive language contact on one bilingual child's language development in an L2-dominant environment through the interpretation of prevalent structural processes, changes and the effects of bilingual contact were interpreted. Bolonyai collected data at three different points over one and a half years at various ages. The children were recorded in naturalistic settings such as dinner conversations, playing, and discussing daily events. Bolonyai also observed which individuals the children appeared to conversate the most with.

Bolonyai described three stages: 1) two years after initial contact with English, both languages remained separated, 2) code-switching is increased and s shift toward English as the matrix language begins in mixed utterances, and 3) a further increase in code switching (Bolonyai, 1998). Bolonyai concluded that such data revealed both convergence and a matrix language turnover. The bilingual subject demonstrated a greater effort to use the L2, but since her proficiency did not keep up, her performance was marked by a compromise strategy of converging structures (Bolonyai, 1998). Bolonyai (1998) provided empirical data as evidence that parts of lexical structure can be split and recombined into a matrix language to project surface structures for bilingual speech. In the Bolonyai study, a child that had spent three years in a L2 dominant environment showed a preference for the L2 language. Even after being placed in a L1 environment, the L1 became the favored language, however L2 found its way in to the L1 structure anyway. Bolonyai (1998) argued that structures and stages of bilingual development occurred at the same time as code switching was present. Over time, the dominance of L2 became more established; Bolonyai concluded that code switching functioned as an agent of change, introducing the lexical structure of L1 into L2.

The research by Bolonyai examined the structural repercussions of intensive language contact in bilingual child language development and argued for an alternative analysis of mechanisms and outcomes of bilingual contact. However, further research drawing on empirical data from situations of intensive language contact is needed to examine the ways in which levels of abstract lexical structure organized cross-linguistically (Bolonyai, 1998). One of the major drawbacks to this study is that one only subject and family were studied. Other research that includes more subjects from various countries should be implemented to obtain clearer more definite results and thus, a better understanding. In the Bolonyai study, the research method was suitable, however, there just were not enough subjects examined.

Genesee Research

Genesee (2001) built on previous research which held that although bilingual children are exposed to different sets of linguistic input, they go through an initial stage where they have one linguistic system. According to Genesee (2001), current evidence indicates that bilingual children can use their developing languages differently and more appropriately with different interlocutors from the earliest stages of productive use. This is significant because it reveals that bilingual children have the cognitive capacity to identify and respond appropriately to important communicative characteristics of their interlocutors. Upon an examination of previous research studies, Genesee (2001) concluded that the linguistic systems of bilingual children develop autonomously and in the same manner as monolingual children. Genesee (2001) offers support from previous studies for this conclusion: 1) upon sufficient exposure to two languages, bilingual children can acquire the same grammatical competence in each of their languages just as monolinguals, and 2) transfer during bilingual acquisition is restricted to specific aspects of syntax or phonology.

Upon reviewing previous studies, Genesee (2001) concludes that child bilingual code mixing is grammatically constrained. The research indicates that once bilingual children demonstrate abstract notions of grammatical knowledge, these notions are constrained. Accordingly, the operation of such constraints which reflect surface features of grammar appears to be evident even earlier in age, when the child is just beginning to speak. Genesee (2001) compared code mixing in children learning language combinations that differ in topological similarity, such as English and French. The results show that bilingual children adopt different code-mixing strategies in accordance with the topological characteristics of their languages. Genesee (2001) points out that the evidence shows that the language faculty is undisturbed even by the complex grammatical challenges posed by bilingual acquisition. Finally, research on children who grow up learning two languages simultaneously indicates that they acquire differentiated representations of the target languages very early in development (Genesee, 2001).

Francis Research

Research by Francis (2005) examined and analyzed many of the earlier studies in this area, and concludes that attrition and replacement are integral parts of a single process. According to Francis (2005), attrition is developmental and systematic, in a similar way to that in which the first language acquisition is not "random forgetting," as previously theorized by Seliger. External factors do not provide for a full account of how the development of attrition or replacement unfolds. Francis discusses two areas in language attrition that has been the focus of vast research: 1) middle childhood, during which a fully developed L1 begins to undergo attrition subsequent to normal monolingual development through ages 5-6, and 2) early childhood, younger than 5 years of age (Francis, 2005). Francis discusses the argument for an early separation of the bilingual child's languages.

Francis discussed the manner in which the attriting language and the replacing language interact in a systematic way, not as two interlanguages simply passing each other by in opposite directions, but in close contact with one with the other such that the replacing language occupies ceded domains systematically (Francis, 2005). Francis theorizes that if it is possible for the attrited language to be replaced completely at any age during the childhood years, there must exist intrinsic factors that may account for the development of a delayed L1 that differs from the normal and typical acquisition of primary languages in children. According to Francis, if L1acquisition proceeds normally during early childhood, L2 learning outcomes range from native-like to interlanguage competence that is rudimentary but qualitatively superior to late, abnormal L1 learning (Francis, 2005). Francis also states that analyses of L2 proficiency comparing child beginners reveal a linear decline; even L2 learners with ages of onset of less than five years could be distinguished from native speakers.

Finally, Francis states that since we are still under the obligation of trying to explain L1-L2 differences, some other process, such as one internal to the faculty of language needs to be explored. This is a positive aspect of his research, and could be implemented or modified in future studies. Francis states that a more heterogeneous and modular approach to how the faculty of language constructs grammatical competence may assist in determining the concepts of performance and competence. He suggests that one of the ways this can be done is to uncover some of the underlying principles for the different faculty of language outcomes, such as primary language, L2, abnormal L1 learning, L1 attrition and replacement (Francis, 2005).

Future Research

A review of the literature reveals that although helpful, future studies are warranted in this area. Future studies could focus on language in the context of children's lives at home and at school. This is because very little is known about the conditions in homes, in schools, and in communities that influence variation in language acquisition and retention. Similarly, effective language instruction cannot occur in isolation from other aspects of an instructional program, yet questions regarding school and classroom environments that facilitate and sustain successful educational outcomes for language-minority students have not been addressed by research. Future research could also focus on developing specific procedures to assess productive use of gender agreement morphology in both monolingual and bilingual children with various levels of L1 proficiency and with various language histories. Included in these groups should be children who evidence both typical and atypical language skills.

As mentioned by Genesee (2001), since young bilingual children have differentiated representations of their two languages, the question of whether their systems develop autonomously or interdependently could be examined in another future study. Autonomous development would be reflected in patterns of acquisition and linguistic representation that match those of monolingual children acquiring the same languages (Genesee, 2001). Monolingual students could be examined to determine whether their systems develop autonomously or interdependently. This would contribute to future research even though it is clear that bilingual children have grammatical capabilities permitting them to use and manage their two languages that set them apart from monolinguals. In this case, evidence of autonomous development would also be evidence for the capacity of the language faculty to acquire and represent the distinct structures and constraints that comprise the grammars of each language.

III. Synthesis

Francis (2005) and Genesee (2001) both conclude that the language faculty is equipped to process input from two languages such that bilingual language acquisition of two first languages simultaneously is the normal outcome. Both agree that this outcome is obtained despite considerable variation in the child's bilingual experience; code-switching and mixing by parents and an unequal distribution of each language in different realm of familial discourse (Francis, 2005). Research by Francis is also similar to Polinsky, who distinguished between children that are forgetters and those that are incomplete learners. Francis builds on the research of Genesee (2001), concluding that attrition of L1 does not affect L2, neither delaying it nor accelerating its development.

Polinsky (1995) took a different approach from Francis and Genesee, demonstrating that there is a significant parallelism in structural change across languages. Polinsky differs from the other authors because his work shows a correlation between levels of grammatical and lexical loss and introduces a simple test to measure the level of attrition. Research by Genesee and Bolonyai both discuss the theory of code switching, which is not addressed by Polinsky or Francis. Code switching is mixing in words from the other language, usually with function words that seem to express relations or verbs from a child's perspective. Bilingual children appear to use code switching until the age of three, however only two of the studies mentioned it. Future studies could examine code switching in different contexts, for example in families where code switching is the norm.

One of the most noticeable ways in which the studies varied from each other was the method in which the research was conducted. Bolonyai studied one subject and family over a large period of time. This study was the one conducted during the longest time period, a positive method to use to obtain a lot of consistent data. However, unlike the other studies, since the sample was so small, no generalizations regarding the results can be made to a larger population. Research by Genesee examined a multitude of studies and research, drawing conclusions based on many study results. This was positive because the conclusions are based on a large sample of research, even though each individual study examined varied from each other. Similar to Polinsky, Genesee mentioned adult bilinguals, and did not specifically limit the study to children as a whole as did the other two authors.

Francis' research method is comparable to that of Genesee, in that he examined the vast literature on the subject and drew his own conclusions from a combination of research studies. Like Bolonyai, Polinsky conducted a study of subjects of a small group, although not as small as Boloyai's. In this way Polinsky's results are not as limited as Bolonyai, who studied one only subject and their corresponding family. Polinsky's article differed from the others because she studied reduced as compared to full languages, and the languages mentioned in her study were not as commonplace as the others. However, similar to Francis and Genesee, Polinsky did built her research on previous studies, as did Bolonyai.

Conclusion

Language acquisition is one of the central topics in cognitive science, and various theories of cognition have tried to explain it. It is widely recognized that language and people's thoughts are intimately related, thus it is a topic that warrants vats research and sparks intrigue. Learning a first language is something every child does successfully, in a matter of a few years and without the need for formal lessons. A growing number of children are learning two languages simultaneously. With language so close to the core of what it means to be human, it is not surprising that children's acquisition of language has received so much attention.

Since many children grow up learning more that one language, and sociological factors must influence acquisition patterns. Research in this area is extremely important because many children may suffer in the classroom as a result. For bilingual education, the initial goal was for children not to be held back from learning and to gain access to content through their primary language. The articles examined clearly indicate that a simultaneous language acquisition is not responsible for dysfunction or failing grades. The majority of the research acknowledges that the knowledge of two or more languages in early childhood does not contribute to language deficiency or deficient intellectual development in any way. However, research in this area still appears to be lacking. More research is needed to secure the minds and voices of our future.