LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

      Culture (more ambiguous than it might seem) 199

      Politics (more than just a passing interest for linguists) 205

      Life after Fulbright: how much bilingualism is in it? 211

      Epilogue. Looking into the (increasingly uncertain) future 216

      Acknowledgments 219

      References 222

      CHAPTER 1. INTERVIEWS WITH BILINGUALS

      Part 1.1. WHO DO WE CONSIDER BILINGUAL?

      As there is a word «bilingualism» in the title of this book, it would make perfect sense to start by explaining what it is. Answering this question in a straightforward ways seems difficult. Put simply, bilinguals are those individuals who speak two or more languages. But obviously, there are two questions that arise – how do we define «knowing» a language and secondly, how well is one supposed to «know» it to be called bilingual?

      Modern linguists do not agree on the definition of bilingualism. The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 2003) proposes such a definition: «having or using two languages especially as spoken with the fluency characteristic of a native speaker». There is a question of whether this proficiency level is achievable and whether individuals using a second language but not being so fluent can be considered bilingual (Liddicoat, 1991). A more diverse definition is set forth by A. Fantini (Fantini, 1985) who sees the following as essential in describing bilingualism: the number of languages used by an individual; types of relations between them; their functions; degree of proficiency; alternation of languages and interaction between them. Haugen (Haugen, 1953) attempts for an even more precise definition by classifying anyone capable of producing coherent ideas in another language as bilingual.

      A rather liberal definition is suggested by Diebold (Diebold, 1964) and J. MacNamara (MacNamara, 1967) where anyone with a minimum competence in any of the four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing) is classed as bilingual. So, as opposed to a widely held belief, beginner language learners in formal academic settings of educational institutions, or e.g., tourists with a working knowledge of a few spoken phrases can be called bilingual. Edwards (Edwards, 2006) holds that almost anyone finds themselves having to be bilingual as in order to be able to travel and take advantage of the benefits of the global world and they have to speak a language rather than their own. The same researcher (Edwards, 2003) dismisses monolingualism as a disease that has to be cured. Attempting to embrace the complexity of the term, Yuko G. Butler and Kenji Hakuta (Butler & Hakuta, 2004) believe that bilinguals are individuals with various degrees of communicative skills (in oral and/or written language) enabling communication in two or more languages in a certain linguistic community.

      As we can see, bilingualism has not only a linguistic but also a social nature and involves more than individual speech production but also cognitive skills, psychological features and a particular social (as well as ethnic, gender, age and cultural) identity. Most of current conceptions and studies of bilingualism are taking a variety of its social and psychological aspects into consideration. Grosjean (Grosjean, 1989) cautions against viewing bilinguals as a sum of two monolinguals. In modern literature there is an emphasis on the fact that while working on improving their linguistic skills, bilinguals develop a whole new linguistic behaviour, which is distinctly different from that of monolinguals. Сook (Cook, 1992) speculates on a wide range of bilingual competences including cultural ones that are to be paid attention to as part of studying bilingualism.

      The complexity of bilingualism led to a variety of classifications of bilinguals according to different criteria: language competences, spheres of use, balance in the use of languages, development of linguistic skills, age of learners, context of language use, etc. E.g., Peal and Lambert (Peal and Lambert, 1962) classify bilinguals into balanced and unbalanced. However, Fishman (Fishman, 1972) thinks this is an idealized view. George Steiner (Steiner, 1992) argued that he was equally good at English, French and German, i.e. he would hardly say which of the languages he would use in a particular situation, which is quite exceptional.

      There are also classifications of social groups of bilinguals. Fishman (Fishman, 1972) speaks of folk bilingualism (e.g., slaves were made to learn basic Greek to talk to their masters) and elite bilingualism (e.g., in the Tsar’s Russia members of high society were taught French while growing up). Additionally, Lambert (Lambert, 1974) suggests that interactions of previous language systems and new ones cause what he calls additive (in societies where one is encouraged to learn a second language for gaining better prospects) and subtractive (an individual has to lose touch with their first language as its use is not endorsed in a particular community).

      It should be remembered that bilingualism is not a static but a very dynamic category and individual bilingual profiles might shift as personal or social circumstances change. E.g., an individual might lose oral skills in a previously learned language as they start using another one more frequently instead, etc.

      Originally, I was looking at interviewing bilinguals with a high (self-reported) level in the four language skills (listening, reading, writing, speaking). All of the fellow Fulbrighters I have interviewed obviously fit this description as all Fulbright candidates are expected to take the TOEFL test and get a certain overall score (depending on the requirements specified by particular host universities in the U.S.). There have also been a few English teachers from different countries whose occupation alone equalled them to the level of a confident language user.

      Throughout the course of this project I realized I had to adopt a more liberal approach to who qualifies as bilingual if I wanted to get more varied perspectives on individual language learning histories. I was able to interview a few first-generation Americans who spoke their heritage languages with a varying degree of fluency, immigrants to the U.S. as well as Americans who self-reported different levels of proficiency in other languages. I felt these people’s insights would be valuable for this project as well. Everyone who participated had had prior experience of learning a foreign language and showed a great interest in the topic of bilingualism. Every participant’s interview was included into this project and I am sure each one contributed to it in its own unique way.