Category: Bilingualism

Introduction

Paweł Zieliński’s report is titled ‘Bilingualism’ and is a brief analysis of bilinguals and who they are. It also helps readers to distinguish a person who is a bilingual from one who is not. According to the Encarta Dictionary (2011), a bilingual refers to a person “able to speak two languages easily and naturally.”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary also defines a bilingual as a person “able to use two languages especially with equal fluency” (Merriam-Webster, 2011).

This text aims to find the correct definition of the term ‘bilingual’, by identifying the characteristics that define a bilingual, the distinctions caused by the different times a language is learned, and whether learning a language is only about speaking the language or learning the culture from which the language comes from, as well.

Zieliński’s key argument is that a person can become bilingual only after they are able to speak the language fluently. This person must also understand the culture from which the language comes from.

He argues that a person does not have to learn a language from youth. It can be learned in adulthood, although it is much more difficult to master a language as an adult compared to learning it in childhood. Zieliński’s analysis covers his main arguments well, although he could have put more emphasis on covering opposing arguments to his opinions, as well.

Summary

The text is organized into an introduction, two key points and a conclusion. In the introduction, a bilingual person is first defines. A bilingual is a person with a command of two languages. A person that speaks more than two languages, however, is referred to as a multilingual. To what degree, however, has a person got understand a second language in order to be referred to as a bilingual?

Most people have been exposed to a foreign language at one point, perhaps during their education, and are, therefore, able to read an article or write clearly in the second language. However, is that enough for one to be labeled a bilingual?

Can a person who speaks only one language master a foreign language well enough for that person to be referred to as a bilingual, or is it necessary that the second language is only learned from birth or childhood for one to be a ‘proper’ bilingual? (Zieliński, 2011)

The final question is whether it is enough to know the grammar of a language simply, or whether it is necessary to master the culture from which the foreign language comes from too.

There are two types of bilinguals, according to Spolsky, the author of a book known as Sociolinguistics (1998). The first type, as defined by Spolsky, is a compound bilingual. This is a bilingual whose second language was learned after the first, and hence, the two languages are closely linked together. The other type is a co-ordinate bilingual. This refers to a bilingual that treats the two different languages as separate entities.

This distinction, however, is controversial, since it is not clear where the distinction lies. Do co-ordinate bilinguals, for example, put different words and objects in different compartments, and do compound bilinguals blend everything between the two languages? Finally, is it necessary to distinguish between different bilinguals?

In response as to whether it is necessary to have someone exposed to a language from the time they are young, most experts say that it is possible to acquire a decent command of a language at a relatively advanced age. It would require a larger effort from the adult, but it is certainly possible. One of the difficulties about learning a language in adulthood is attaining a language’s proper accent.

However, an accent can always be developed and perfected over time. It is, therefore, not necessary, as proposed by Spolsky, to divide bilinguals into groups. It is senseless to put a group of people in categories based on criteria that are not particularly clear in the first place.

Another noteworthy point discussed in the text is the issue of culture, and the role it plays in bilingualism. It is unclear whether or not a person’s knowledge of a language is considered incomplete if the person does not understand the culture from which the language comes from. A good example about a Polish and an English customer is given.

In Poland, if a customer has to be apologized to, the letter must be long, winded and offer several apologies and an explanation for whatever mistake was made. If the letter is not long enough, the Polish customer perceives that the letter is dishonest. A long letter to an English customer, on the other hand, portrays dishonesty. It is essential in England to be brief and precise when issuing an apology.

As long as an individual has adequate command of a second language’s grammar, speech and words, and can speak the language comfortably in a natural environment, that person may be considered bilingual. Knowledge of customs only enhances the competence of the individual. It is not an integral part of measuring a person’s bilingual ability.

Critique

Author’s Opinions

The text has three main opinions expressed. First, author opposes Spolski’s idea of creating two different groups of bilinguals. The idea of having different groups of bilinguals could probably create a better understanding of this subject. However, the definitions given by the Spolski are unclear and are not mutually exclusive. In addition, they are not necessary, since they do not have any effect on the definition of a bilingual.

The second opinion expressed by the author relates to time during one’s life when languages are picked up. For one to be a true bilingual, the author believes that it is more beneficial to develop a strong command of the structure of the language, the vocabulary and possibly the traditional accent of the language.

Younger persons have the ability to pick up languages faster than older persons. However, if an older person picks up a strong command of a second language, then he/she is considered to be a bilingual.

Finally, the author has a strong opinion on the cultural context of a language. Although it is not a vital aspect in determining a person’s bilingual ability, understanding the culture of the second language enables the speaker to settle in better in a natural environment where the language is spoken.

Are the arguments convincing?

Zieliński’s argument about Spolski’s categories of bilinguals is somewhat convincing. First, Spolski’s categorization of bilinguals does not have clear-cut definitions and is not credible to use. However, Spolski is not the only author that uses these categories of bilingualism, so it is reasonable to assume that there will be further research and clearer definitions of the two categories.

Zieliński’s argument that there is no need to categorize, however, is a lot more accurate. In the context of defining bilinguals, the two groups do not make much of a difference to what bilingualism is, and what its defining characteristics are.

Zieliński’s argument that languages can be learned and mastered at about any age is a strong point. First, he explores the defining characteristics of a language, particularly describing excellence in language as mastery of vocabulary, grammar and speech. These characteristics can be picked up through constant practice and study, particularly if one places himself in a position where he can access the language effectively.

Zieliński argues this well. He also notes that it is easier for a child to learn a second language faster than an adult. Children grasp languages faster because of their unique stage in human development.

Finally, culture, as mentioned before, is a definite bonus to learning a second language. The importance of learning the culture from which a language was born is emphasized when a person has to enter that culture and interact with its people. Zieliński’s argument on this matter is valid, and his emphasis on learning the culture of a people is highly sensible.

Are the Conclusions Reasonable?

Zieliński’s first conclusion is that Spolsky’s argument regarding the categorization of bilinguals is vague and unnecessary. This argument is based on the definition Spolsky gives the different categories. They do not cut a distinct line between any groups of bilinguals.

In addition, the categorization of different types of bilinguals, particularly in such a vague manner, does not make a lot of difference to the subject of bilinguals as a whole. Therefore, Zieliński’s conclusion is valid.

Zieliński also argues that a language can be picked up and perfected in adulthood, although it is much more difficult than learning the second language at a tender age. Given children’s capability to grasp languages faster, and the challenges adults are likely to face, then he makes a valid conclusion that adults will need more time and practice in order for them to be fully bilingual.

Finally, Zieliński concludes that it is an added advantage to understand the culture of the people that speak the language, although it is not necessary for one to become a bilingual. Given that being a bilingual is more about speaking the language well than understanding culture, Zieliński’s conclusion is valid.

Conclusion

The overall opinion of the text is that it is well written and argued quite reasonably. It is a reasonable source of information for people looking for basic information on bilingualism. Given that there is remarkably little information and research on the subject, Zieliński’s paper is an invaluable piece material that should be added to the growing library of information related to this matter.

There are two aspects that could improve the paper. First, more research should be done on the various aspects of language that make a bilingual a master of the language.

These include elements like writing skills, prose and academic writing. Secondly, opposing arguments on the three aspects discussed in the paper should be included in the paper. This makes it wholesome and enables a reader to view both sides of the argument and make an informed decision.

Reference List

Merriam-Webster. (2011). Bilingual. Retrieved from Merriam-webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bilingual

Zieliński, P. (2011). Bilingualism. Retrieved from Omniglot: http://www.omniglot.com/language/articles/bilingualism.htm

Introduction

Bilingual education is the study that focuses on two languages and this case being Spanish as first language and English as the second language. This kind of study was due to the demands by the Spanish immigrants in the United States that their children learn the English language as well. They wanted a form of an understanding of the language of instruction to help their children create good communication skills in the public schools for better learning environment. For a long time in America, the public schools focused on two languages for instruction, the main one being the English language with the aim of helping students get familiar with the English language (Angela 16).

It has always been available to those students who hardly spoke any English or were non-proficient in English. These students have been referred to as ‘Limited-English-proficient’ (LEP) or ‘English Language learners’ (ELL). Though the federal government had attempted to distance itself from this program in the early twenty first century, its implementation has received immense support by both the State governments, local education agencies and even the federal government in United States. Debates over the usefulness of the program has caused a great spectacle with each team arguing why they each think that the program is or is not very useful in the country. This argument had taken an interesting turn especially with the notion that the Mexican American students are the largest language minority in the United States.

Background Of Bilingual Education

According to Cummins (16), bilingual education embraces both the public and private schooling in America. It is not a new phenomenon as its application dates back to almost five hundred years. In 18^th and 19^th centuries, similar programs were introduced with a specialty to German, French and Scandinavian all of which slowly waned during the two World Wars which saw a decrease in the European Immigration.

The years1958 – 1968 saw the evolution of Spanish being introduced as a foreign language in the States. During this period, reforms were made in the curriculum programs to embrace improved learning in mathematics, sciences and also foreign languages. This was after the Soviet launched its first earth artificial satellite in 1958. During this period, it also saw many Spanish citizens migrating to America as a result of the Cuba Revolution. They settled in Southern Florida around the Miami area.

The Spanish speaking residents needed to learn and assimilate English as a second language and as a result, bilingual programs were introduced in public schools in 1959. the new program grew and its popularity attracted the interest of the nation as a result of its effectiveness and in 1963, the program was introduced in Southwest.

The state showed support in this program upon the implementation of two Acts of Congress at the time; the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Title VII Bilingual Education Act of 1968. it was the Title VII Bilingual Act that brought major changes when it authorized the bilingual local schools to be funded. This was aimed to those students who spoke other languages apart from the English language. In the first year alone after its implementation, it had funded over 76 bilingual programs of students who spoke over 14 different languages (Joel 16).

The Introduction of this Act increased the level of learning both the Spanish and English language and it was later backed by other statutes and even court orders at a later stage. These programs have received a good response throughout the years up to date and its implementation has been embraced even at this era.

Federal Support Of Bilingual Education

Before we embark on our argument as to why the implementation of bilingual education in schools is important, it is important to first see how the federal government has supported this program.

The support dates back when it introduced the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Title VII Bilingual Education Act of 1968 as has been discussed earlier. By end 1968, more than 10 states had enacted several statutes that backed the bilingual program and several others had passed legislation. The key role of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was to fund the program for the poor students who couldn’t afford it, the adults who wished to enroll in this programs and even giving support to the teachers of this programs. The Bilingual Education Act enacted shortly afterwards became the backbone of the first Act and the government ensured that the funds were released to schools offering this programs. It demonstrated the need to use the two languages for instruction as a means to enhance the education of the language minorities (Reynaldo 31).

The federal government, after the introduction of the Bilingual Education Act was able to achieve the following; it convinced those states which only took English to be the only language of instruction or those that prohibited the use of any other language other than English to amend or repeal their state laws to accommodate the new program. Secondly, it also signaled its go ahead to adopt the use of non-English languages as languages of instruction to teach the minority students. This was in particular the minority students in the Southwest and Northeast. Lastly, it was able to highlight the problems of these minority students making them recognizable.

However, it should be noted that the federal government did not have a smooth ride to implement these programs to be widely acceptable. It took almost a decade for it to be able to implement these policies and required backing by various policies including court decisions to finally implement the programs.

In 1970, the Department of health, Education and Welfare issued a directive as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 directing all schools in the district to stop any form of discrimination to students not familiar with the English language. The memorandum instructed the schools to take into consideration the students who were limited in the English communication ability and to further put their problems at ease by ceasing to test this students highly in English and lastly, to bring in participation of their parents by communicating to them in the language that they understood.

In 1974, the government was given a further backing by the Supreme Court when they held unanimous decision in the celebrated case of Lau V. Nicholas when it spoke against discrimination in school programs that were conducted exclusively in English. It further stated that the schools had a responsibility of ensuring that the students were helped to overcome their language barrier (Jennifer 22).

The same year saw the introduction of Equal Educational opportunity Act that prevented any kind of language discrimination. The New York City Board of Education which was the biggest school in the nation at the time was sued by an advocacy group known as ASPIRA. The advocacy group argued that the school had failed to provide the necessary education to the Spanish speaking students from Puerto Rican. The advocacy group got their moment when an order was given to all schools to obtain a consent decree requiring them to provide the Spanish students with the bilingual education programs.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was further amended in 1975 to include a provision of bilingual ballots and services pertaining elections so as to include non-English speaking citizens such as the Latinos, Indian-Americans and the Asians. The courts too inserted a provision in the Court Interpreters Act in 1978 requiring interpreters for the defendants who could not understand English to be provided to aid in smooth and fair court proceedings. It also required the state to release funds for the interpreters to be trained.

The campaign for bilingual program has grown ever since with new policies being put in place with the support of the federal government.

Linguistic Benefits For Bilingual Program Implementation

Though many people tend to ignore other languages other than English, there are advantages of being able to learn more than one language. The benefits can be classified into four categories as they will be discussed below.

The first benefit of bilingual learning is for cognitive development. This means that the child is able to enhance his creativity due to the diversity thinking. They further develop verbal abilities that they utilize by learning and appreciating other people’s culture. They also develop excellent listening skills in a bid to learn more and are in a better position to solve a crisis due to their general reasoning (James and Judith 13).

The other benefit is personal appreciation. When one learns another language, it helps that person open up socially and engage in communications with more people. This is especially important for a child who opens up to the outside world by not shying away when around people who cannot express themselves eloquently in English. Learning another language other than English helps the child to enhance their memory and studies have indicated that such children develop good memory than those children who only learn in one language.

The child also acquires Academic advantage over other students. Research has further shown that the students who have engaged themselves in more than one language score a grade higher in examinations. The study further revealed that they scored higher in exams for joining college especially the verbal section tested by Scholastic Aptitude. It also revealed that students who learnt an additional language exhibited better academic performance achieving highly than their counterparts.

Economic benefit is another reason why the program should be implemented. Learning more than one language opens up more career paths to the individual. This has been attributed to the increase of economic growth abroad. Careers such as interpretation or teaching foreign languages require one to have knowledge of an extra language other than English.

Implementation Of Bilingual System In Schools

Though there is no age limit of learning an additional language, it has been encouraged that bilingual programs be introduced in schools so that children are engaged at early age. Immersion programs have been classified into Early immersion, Middle immersion and Late immersion. Early immersion is where the child starts learning the other language between the ages of 5 to 6. The middle immersion engages the child who has attained the ages between 9 to 10 and lastly, the late immersion range between the ages 11 to 14 (Courtney and Catherine 10).

Various reasons have been given for the importance of implementing the program to schools with the most outstanding reason being that young students have the ability to learn how to mimic the native words faster than older people. learning a foreign language require lots of mimicking the native words to come up with a sentence and young children have greater advantage.

The other reason is the ability of young children’s ability to develop the intonation of the native language faster than the older ones. Learning the second language in school also helps to open up the child mind and perform well both academically and socially. They grow up with a critical mind and ability to communicate effectively over the years.

Though many people argue that introducing more than one language to a child creates confusion, research has indicate that to the contrary, it enhances the child’s memory and all that the child requires at this age is motivation from his elders.

Challenges Of Bilingual Program Implementation

The implementation of this program has faced many criticisms from various bodies. A movement was established in 1980 with a goal of eliminating all non-English languages in the region. It aimed at ensuring that the state reverted back to the English-only and makes it the sole official language. By 1990, its attempts bore fruits when 17 States gave a declaration that they only recognized English as their universal and official language. It was also successful when the bilingual education policies were reverted in the states of California in 1998 and in its place introduced the Structured English Immersion for all the Limited-English-proficient students. Arizona and Massachusetts followed suit in 2000 and 2002 respectively (Bruno 33).

Most of these movements have painted a bad picture with their arguments that the undocumented Latinos are out to steal the jobs of the American citizens. The program has also been termed as a disaster with many people arguing that it is costly for the state to implement the program. Much of the worry comes from the immigrants being incorporated into the American culture and society and further being immersed into the host country. This has been connected to the politics, most of the critics opting to vote out the program. They have gone to an extent of viewing the bilingual education program as a form of remedial education.

The critics have also gone further to treat the bilingual students as helpless bunch of individuals and they don’t recognize the education program as an academic subject. They criticize the mode of teaching the students major subjects like mathematics and sciences in their native language as primitive.

Other critics have argued that bilingual education is not so much of an issue about the language of instruction but rather one is which is based on competing cultures. The culture here is the one between American and Spanish.

The other main challenge facing this implementation is from the state itself. This has been established by only four public schools in the District receiving waivers from the department in a period of two years to initiate these programs.

It has also been argued that most people have attained success without having to undergo the said program. This has acted as a challenge to convince students to undergo the program in which most term as difficult and a waste of time.

Effectiveness of Bilingual Education

Several studies and researches have been conducted to show the effectiveness of bilingual education. According to Virginia (32), the Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion Strategy (1984-1991) identified and gave comparisons of different approaches to educate Limited English Proficient students with each language of instruction differing with each other.

The approaches they discussed were the structured immersion, the early-exit transitional bilingual education and lastly, the late-exit transitional bilingual education. In the first approach, all the instructions were mostly given in English language while in the second approach, the initial stages of the student learning were done in the native language and the rest in English with the native language only being used when there is a need to clarify and issue.

The last approach is where the students for most part of their study received their instruction in their native language regardless to whether they were fluent in English. The study results indicated that the students who were using the last approach which is the late-exit transitional bilingual performed higher in their grades as compared to the other two approaches. The study also showed that they all acquired the skills of the English language at the same rate. The same findings were supported by Virginia Collier and Wayne Thomas, both of who conducted a research on the effectiveness of bilingual education. They also stated that students who had received instructions in both languages performed better than their counterparts.

Research has also been conducted on the dual immersion bilingual education programs. This is where instructions are given in both the Spanish and English language. The research showed that the students benefit from the two way program and that they are equally proficient in the English language.

The census conducted in 2002 in United States gave an estimation of over 45 million people in the state whose first language is not English, with almost 60 percent of the total being Spanish speakers. In the released statistics, it showed that 55 percent of the Latinos and Latinas could speak both English and Spanish, 21 percent reporting to only speak the English Language and 24 percent stating that they spoke only Spanish. Armed with this figures, it is therefore apparent that the numbers of Spanish who spoke Spanish as a native language and who could not express themselves properly in English is still very high (Miguel 24).

From the researches that have been conducted, it is clear that effectives of bilingual education has been established and should be encouraged since mainstream and marginal groups benefit much from them.

Conclusion

The critics of bilingual education should first get their facts right before arguing. This kind of education has brought unity in all the students. Those who only spoke Spanish can now understand their counterparts and be able to communicate effectively. The bilingual education should actually be improved and the government introduces new policies to support it and make sure that it still has a future in our state.

Work Cited

Angela, Valenzuela. Why “Texas-style” Accountability Fails Latino Youth. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004. Print.

Bruno, Rosalind. Mexican Americans and the Campaign for Educational Equality in Texas. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987. Print.

Courtney, Cazden and Catherine Snow. English Plus: Issues in the Bilingual Education.

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. London: Sage, 1990. Print.

Cummins, Jim. The Entry and Exit Fallacy in Bilingual Education. NABE Journal, Vol (94)45, 1980.

James, Olson and Judith, Olson. From Trauma to Triumph: Cuban Americans. New York: Twayne Publishers. 1995. Print.

Jennifer, Hook. Diversity and Change in the Institutional Context of Immigrant Adaptation. Demography Vol.39. 2002.

Joel, Perlmann. Historical Legacies: 1840-1920. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Volume 608, 1990.

Miguel, San. Language Use and English Speaking Ability. Census 2000 Brief.

Washington: Census Bureau, 2003. Print.

Reynaldo, Macias. Language and Ethnic Classification of Language Minorities. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Vol 15, 1993.

Virginia, Collier. A Synthesis of Studies Examining Long-Term Language Minority Student Data on Academic Acievement. Bilingual Research Journal, Vol: 17, 1992.

Nowadays, the integration of children whose native language is other than English is a common phenomenon at the majority of schools across the United States. Continuously increasing percentages of such students enrolled in US schools is one of the modern educational trends without regard to the location of the state. However, it is inseparable from one of the most significant challenges – the necessity to implement programs designed specifically for children who are not proficient in the English language to meet their educational needs and address the issues potentially related to increased language diversification.

To cope with them, schools introduce bilingual and ESL programs, but they vary in types and effectiveness. Therefore, it is critical to select these programs based on the specificities of the student population.

Before making recommendations regarding the implementation of a particular bilingual and ESL program in the school, it is essential to recall different types of these initiatives. They are divided into bilingual (early-exit, late-exit, and two-way) and ESL (pull-out, class period, and resource center) programs (Rennie, 1993). The early-exit bilingual program is based on the early transitioning to all-English in-class communication and instruction.

In other words, the stress is laid on using the English language always when in class during early and middle-elementary grades (Fase, Jaspaert, & Kroon, 2013). Late-exit program is very similar to the one described above with the only difference – the transition to the English language is a more lengthy process that is completed when students are in the sixth grade (Scanlan & Lopez, 2015). Finally, the foundation of the two-way bilingual programs is striving to maintain the 50-50 balance between the majority and minority languages when explaining instructions and coping with in-class activities (Murphy, 2013; Rennie, 1993).

As for ESL pull-out programs, they are based on pulling minority students out of the mainstream classroom to provide them with class instruction in English as a second language (Zacarian & Haynes, 2014). ESL resource center is closely connected to the traditional pull-out programs with the only difference – students from different classes are pulled together in one environment to receive instructions in English (Rennie, 1993). ESL class period is associated with instructing minority students in English regularly (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2012). In addition to bilingual and ESL programs, there are as well other initiatives designed for satisfying language diversity needs.

They are divided into content-based programs based on the adaptation of English in response to the level of minority students’ proficiency accompanied by gestures and visual aids for enhancing the understanding of instructions when communicating during classes and structured immersion programs based on using only English during classes but fostering apprehension by deploying special educational techniques, such as grouping students based on the level of their language knowledge, thus choosing a particular level of language complexity to communicate with them (Wood, 2014; Rennie, 1993).

Based on the existence of a great variety of programs, it is essential to assess the specificities of the school environment to select an appropriate initiative for improving proficiency in the English language. Because the environment is not purely bilingual, as minorities are speaking several other languages, it is possible to state that implementing bilingual programs is ineffective. It can be explained by the fact that the distribution of minorities is not homogenous across classes. In other words, in some classes, there are several groups of language minority students. From this perspective, ESL programs are the best option for the district.

The main assumption is that the ESL class period might be beneficial for achieving long-term academic achievement. There are several arguments for choosing this program. To begin with, preference was given to class period instead of the pull-out program to minimize the risks of segregation that is a politically and historically critical matter of concern (Endo & Rong, 2013; Zacarian & Haynes, 2014). Because the foundation of the pull-out program is the division of students, it might potentially lead to the increased social and ethnic gap between minority and majority students, which is an undesirable outcome of the initiative.

Therefore, even though pull-out programs are popular in the United States schools, they are not recommended in this particular district due to the desire to contribute to establishing social equality, not foster a division of students (Rodriguez, Carrasquillo, & Lee, 2014).

On the other hand, the implementation of the ESL class period program is associated with the deeper and more effective integration of the minority students into the local community. More than that, their chances of becoming more proficient in English are significantly higher compared to the segregated pull-out sessions because they will be placed in the English-speaking environment during classes and communicate with native speakers, thus enhancing their understanding of the language.

The only challenge, in this case, is to group students based on their language knowledge. However, it is easy to overcome by conducting several language tests and personal communication with the students. All in all, developed in a supportive way and involving both majority students and expert teachers are the best approaches to making this initiative effective (Rennie, 1993). That being said, the ESL class period is preferred among other programs due to specificities of the local student population and objectives that go beyond academic achievement only.

Non-native speakers commonly face numerous challenges when sharing their thoughts. It is especially visible in the case of written communication or when it is requested to deliver messages connecting arguments to different content areas. However, this ability is not a vital aspect of effective communication. Instead, morphology, syntax, and phonological features play a central role in identifying the level of language knowledge and proficiency. To prove this statement, it may be helpful to analyze the sample text written by one of the students. Reading the paper for the first time, it is evident that the student faces some critical issues.

For instance, morphologically, it is obvious that the native language of the student is an isolating one that does not require morphemes, such as –sending to indicate the grammatical number. English, on the other hand, requires such morphemes and is inflective, so that changing words to share the overall meaning of the message is important.

Speaking of syntax, there are no critical matters of concern to point to because the writer develops the sentences using appropriate word order and punctuation rules. In general, analyzing the answer from the perspective of syntax, the impression is positive. As for phonological features, phonemes are organized as the onset with consonants at the beginning of syllables, but it is a common characteristic of the English language.

More than that, it is essential to mention that the student experiences some vocabulary-related issues due to mixing up such words (for instance, “their” and “there”) and making mistakes in writing (“verry”). All in all, the word choice is poor that demonstrates the need to work on studying the language.

Still, regardless of several weak aspects of writing, it is essential to point to the strong sides of the writer. Hyun addressed the question from different perspectives. To be specific, in addition to human losses, the student mentioned the economic costs of wars as well as environmental consequences and the impact of international armed conflicts on globalization. More than that, Hyun mentions personal causes that commonly make people driven to initiate wars. In this way, in a short response, the student demonstrated the ability to address the question based on different content areas. It means that it is possible to cope with morphological, syntactic, and phonological issues and help the student become even more skilled writers and enhance the knowledge of the English language.

Still, to overcome the identified problems, it is paramount to determine what are the causes of their emergence. They may be defined by applying theories of second language acquisition. For instance, according to semantic meaning theory, the most important aspect of learning the second language is the acquisition of meaning. From what was written by Hyun, it is obvious that the student does understand the meanings of words (lexical and semantic meanings) as well as the meaning of the context (pragmatic meaning). However, it is the lack of apprehending the grammar meaning that affects the quality of writing (Gärdenfors, 2014).

On the other hand, the student’s issues can be explained from the perspective of the monitor model of second language acquisition. According to the central assumption of this approach, there are two separate concepts: acquisition of the language (picking it up during communication) and learning (studying rules and enriching one’s vocabulary) (Gass, 2013). Based on what was read in Hyun’s response, it is as well obvious that there are no critical problems with language acquisition. However, there may be some problems with learning – due to either the lack of time or motivation – because the absence of the necessary rules knowledge and vocabulary is notable.

Nevertheless, regardless of the existing challenges, all of them can be addressed. For instance, it is advisable to point to all mistakes made by the student and offer support and help in understanding them. Also, it is recommended to provide the student with relevant theoretical materials to contribute to the studying process. In any case, it is critical to initiate a truthful dialogue with this student and find out what is their goal as a learner.

If it is revealed that they want to become a better writer and improve the knowledge of the English language, giving some additional writing tasks may be an option. On the other hand, in case of avoiding contact, some additional attention and control during the classes may be beneficial for motivating the student to study, even though this motivation is likely to be negative (for instance, using grades to react to coping with learning activities). All in all, the response to the student’s writing should incorporate both weaknesses and strengths of the writing style and be based on an individual approach to teaching to be effective and enhance writing and the overall English language proficiency. Speaking of content-area knowledge, recommending some popular journals or newspapers may be an option for extending their horizons and potentially improving not only language but also general knowledge.

References

Endo, R., & Rong, X. L. (Eds.). (2013). Educating Asian Americans: Achievement, schooling, and identities. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Fase, W., Jaspaert, K., & Kroon, S. (2013). The state of minority languages: International perspectives on survival and decline. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gärdenfors, P. (2014). The geometry of meaning: Semantics-based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gass, S. M. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York, NY: Routledge.

Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (Eds.). (2012). Co-teaching and other collaborative practices in the EFL/ESL classroom: Rationale research, reflections, and recommendations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Murphy, A. F. (2013). A comparison of dual language and bilingual programs. Saarbrücken, Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.

Rennie, J. (1993). ESL and bilingual program models. Web.

Rodriguez, D., Carrasquillo, A., & Lee, K. S. (2014). The bilingual advantage: Promoting academic development, biliteracy, and native language in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Scanlan, M., & Lopez, F. A. (2015). Leadership for culturally and linguistically responsive schools. New York, NY: Routledge.

Wood, D. L. (2014). A study of the effects of bilingual and structured English immersion programs on the oral English and literacy development of students learning English as a second language. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.

Zacarian, D., & Haynes, J. (2014). The essential guide for educating beginning English learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Introduction

Language policy is currently used by various governments as a tool of protecting the cultural, social and economic values of the state and government. The enhancement of the language policy in this manner defends the country’s official language of a particular region which is threatened by other languages. Language bilingualism is a current practise conducted by various states in the establishment of two languages to act as communicating tools (Ferguson, 2006).

The two languages are established as a national policy to facilitate a communication platform amongst different people from various cultural backgrounds (Ruiz, 2004). The policy adaptation involves the representation of the most commonly used and accepted languages to act as communicating tool by the population of the given state or country. Bilingualism has been effective in different countries and states. In addition, diversity in languages enhances development and growth.

Definition of Language Policy

Language policy stands for the facilitation of governing policies designed by a country to ensure the use of a common language amongst its citizens. Language policies have been used by different countries over time in the establishment of a communicating tool that would join the citizens to a common and cohesive goal. Preservation and protection of linguistic and cultural diversity in the 21^st Century is vital according to the research illustrated by politicians, writers, leaders, artists and by the human rights and linguistics activists (Shohamy, 2006).

The current languages spoken word wide stands at approximately six thousand languages. These languages are a threat of being eroded and diminished in the 21^st Century. There are numerous factors that affect the usage and existence of the various human languages.

The use of the language in formal learning and communication is the key determinant of the importance and effectiveness of a language. Some languages are very essential in the learning and communication practices of various people in offices, businesses, institutions and in the government (Ferguson, 2006). This means that these languages are vital in the communication of the entire region due to its diversity.

The size of the languages native speaker also indicates the general usage and importance of the language to the people of the entire region, state or country. The languages used by the biggest percentage of the population acts as a common communicating ground amongst the population (Mackey, 2009). The adaptation of a common language used by the majority of the population leads to the desire to know and learn the same language from the other smaller tribes.

Individual and personal reasons lead people to learn and embrace foreign languages which are commonly used in their region so that they can also be part of the dialogues and conversations in the region. Similarly, the tribes that have low population numbers fail to interact effectively with other regional or country members due to communication barrier. The result of erosion in languages usually takes place when the low population languages are neglected and adaptation of new languages enhanced.

The economic and social weight of majority of the speakers of a particular language determines the effectiveness of language policies. The language can have a small percentage in terms of its usage and population but the availability of elites who use or uphold that particular language leads to a clear determination of whether the language is recognised by a particular state or government. According to the research conducted by various scholars, every language has a right of protection, recognition and establishment in the various language policies established by the states. The facilitation of this effect governs the minority population from oppression and discrimination.

In addition, the language acts as one of the tools that moderate the cultural, economic and social values of a certain group of people, region and country (Shohamy, 2006). In addition, language policy is currently used by various governments as a tool of protecting the cultural, social and economic values of the state and government. The current languages spoken word wide stands at approximately six thousand languages. This means that these languages are vital in the communication of the entire region due to its diversity. The size of the languages native speaker also indicates the general usage and importance of the language to the people of the entire region, state or country.

The knowledge of different languages acts as an added advantage to international trade, foreign exchange and globalisation. The 21^st Century has resulted to the realisation of diversified markets through international trade and globalisation. Involvement of students in international learning and education is also a tool illustrating on the importance of bilingualism (Ruiz, 2004). Students learn different languages to enhance their communication with other students and with business associates in future.

The diversity of a person in languages acts as a fundamental establishment because the current century needs people who have diverse communication skills. In addition, investors from various countries and states have acknowledged the benefits of diversification. This has resulted in growth of international institutions, organisations and companies across the world with the aim of diverse facilitation of goods and services with the aim of customer satisfaction, growth and profit accumulation.

Language Policy and Goals

Language policy consists of different significant roles in the establishment of an industrious and cohesive state and country. The language policies act as fundamental tools in the establishment of barriers of language erosion from external involvement, international trade and globalisation (Ricento, 2000). Research indicates that languages are the key contributors of the cultural heritage of a certain region.

Consequently, language policy is currently used by various governments as a tool of protecting the cultural, social and economic values of the state and government. Some languages are very essential in the learning and communication practices of various people in offices, businesses, institutions and in the government. There are numerous languages that exist in the different parts of the world and are not recognised or established. Some of these languages are yet to be provided in writing because they are not officially recognised.

According to Spolsky, languages which are termed or seen as endangered go through segregation because of lack of formal and informal support and integration (Spolsky, 2009). The distinction between planning and policy making results in an effective realisation of language policies that acknowledge diversity in languages and facilitate a mutual relation among different languages. The domain of the various languages is dependable on the social and economic status.

There are languages that are seen as universal because of the ancient political and economic influences. For instance, some countries adopted their colonies official language as their own official language. The adaptation of foreign languages as the key and formal language in states and countries with low social and economic standards resulted from colonialism and slavery. On the other hand, the locals who were subjected to colonialism and slavery by the countries with huge social and economic standards had to learn the language of their colonies.

Communication between the colonies and their subjects had to exist thus the facilitation of education facilities to enhance proper communication grounds between the two parties. Slavery and colonisation therefore acts as an essential element which facilitated the learning of the major languages (Mackey, 2009). In addition, the presence of various languages that are recognised worldwide and practised in various parts signifies the need to have bilingualism and multilingualism.

The state or government can be willing to set language policies to protect the cultural, social and economic values of the local citizens. However, the maintenance of the local languages depends entirely on the native language speakers.

The government sets the different policies in the governance of the various languages and their corresponding policies. Languages are vital in the communication of the entire region due to its diversity. The size of the languages native speaker also indicates the general usage and importance of the language to the people of the entire region, state or country. The twenty first Century has resulted to the realisation of diversified markets through international trade and globalisation. Every language has a right of protection, recognition and establishment in the various language policies established by the states (UNESCO, 2008).

The language acts as one of the tools that moderate the cultural, economic and social values of a certain group of people, region and country. The diversity of a person in languages acts as a fundamental establishment because the current century needs people who have diverse communication skills. The language policies act as fundamental tools in the establishment of barriers of language erosion from external involvement, international trade and globalisation.

Reasons for Language Policy

There are numerous reasons behind the establishment of language policies. The reasons depend on the diversity of the language, population using the language, amongst other factors. The importance of a language in the facilitation of communication and learning processes of the population of a state or country acts an essential determination and reason behind the establishment of language policies (Ricento, 2000).

Research shows that the cultural diversity and the heritage of the various communities and regions depend mostly on their local languages. The governance of the language policies by the state offers an essential obligation to different languages to practise indigenous cultural norms and communication without external pressure and interference. On the other hand, the facilitation of language policy of bilingualism provides room for international growth and development. The use of two languages in communication and learning enhances on the diversity of knowledge and business opportunities.

The availability of international trade, globalisation and international relations gives a platform for growth and development. The state should therefore provide room for communication and learning to enhance on the different improvement levels in the social and economic standards. According to UNESCO, a close relationship between countries communicating in different languages provides a base for growth and development (UNESCO, 2008).

The achievement of this is realised due to lack of communication hazards and the embracement of the different cultures and languages. The recognition of language adaptation by a country in the learning and education institutions results in improved social and communication standards among various countries. Similarly, the levels of investors increase with the increase in goods and services. The availability of numerous sources of goods and services ultimately results in the reduction of prices thus bridging the gap between the rich and the poor.

Challenges and solutions for Language Policy

The government or state faces various challenges in the implementation of the language policies. The enactment of language policies to limit the erosion and extinction of languages and provide limitless boundaries in the use of different languages acts as a challenge to the different governmental entities. The native speakers in most cases fail to embrace their relative languages and opt to adopt the internationally recognised languages in communication.

The research conducted by various research practitioners illustrates that the different local languages will start disappearing in the 21^st century (Wright, 2007). Globalisation and the presence of free international trade have greatly contributed to the adaptation of certain foreign languages to assist in communication between citizens of different countries and economic and social background. The presence of elites from local languages determines the recognition of their native languages. Nepotism, corruption and other related factors contribute greatly to the allocation of language policies. Bureaucracy is another factor that leads to adverse effects on the facilitation of effective and efficient language policies.

The proper channels should be followed in the facilitation of language policies of individual states and governments. This provides a clear and concise formulation of the long term policies that lead to cohesion and understanding amongst the different users. On the other hand, the acknowledgement of the diverse languages and their individual significance should facilitate a motive from the government or state. The above factors can effectively act as solutions to the various problems generated by the enactment of language polices.

Arabization and Language Policy

Arabization which is at times referred to as Arabisation depicts the art of non-Arabs embracing the cultural values, learning Arabic and embracement of the Arab identity. The realisation of Arabization developed in the seventh century where the Arab culture and language was established to oppose the Arab Christians who were natives of the lands conquered by Arab Muslims (Wright, 2007). The Arabs intermarried with other communities and hence the growth and spread of Arabic and Arabs worldwide.

The Arabic language has gained recognition over the past decades due to the availability of diverse and numerous job opportunities and economic and social benefits. Arab countries are recognised for their fertility in crude oil and petroleum products. This makes the Arabian countries and states an economic attraction to many citizens from various states.

The presence of foreigners in Arab countries results in the need to teach and learn Arabic as well as English, Spanish, French and other languages. The connection between Arabization and language policy lies in the fact that there are numerous foreign visitors that work in the companies, organisations and institutions in the relevant Arab countries. Learning and communication is a vital aspect in the economy and social status of the Arabian countries.

Consequently, the different states use language policies to enhance on the communication, learning and teaching practises within their individual boarders. In addition, the availability of international and foreign learning institutions provides room for education advancement (Spolsky, 2009). The foreign students benefit in advancing their studies in the Arab countries through language polices. Similarly, the Arabs benefit through the establishment of language policies because they also learn foreign languages to enhance communication between them and other citizens from foreign countries (Tollefson, 2006).

Policy of Bilingual Education

Language bilingualism is a current practise conducted by various states in the establishment of two languages to act as communicating tools. The two languages are established as a national policy to facilitate a communication platform amongst different people from various cultural backgrounds (Hornberger, 2006). Language policies have been used by different countries over time in the establishment of a communicating tool that would join the citizens to a common and cohesive goal. Preservation and protection of linguistic and cultural diversity in the 21st Century is vital according to the research illustrated by politicians, writers, leaders, artists and by the human rights and linguistics activists.

Conclusion

There are numerous challenges and benefits affiliated with language policies and bilingualism. The state or government should enhance the enactment of useful and long-term language policies without corruption, nepotism bureaucracy or related factors. In addition, the adaptation of language policy involves the representation of the most commonly used and accepted languages to act as communicating tool by the population of the given state or country (Hornberger, 2006).

The result of erosion in languages usually takes place when the low population languages are neglected and adaptation of new languages enhanced. Similarly, the levels of investors increase with the increase in goods and services. The availability of numerous sources of goods and services ultimately results in the reduction of prices thus bridging the gap between the rich and the poor. The governance of the language policies by the state offers an essential obligation to different languages to practise indigenous cultural norms and communication without external pressure and interference.

References

Ferguson, G. (2006). Language planning and education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hornberger, N. H. (2006). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. Tesol Quarterly, 30(3), 401-427.

Mackey, W. F. (2009). Language policy and language planning. Journal of communication, 29(2), 48-53.

Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196-213.

Ruiz, R. (2004). Orientations in language planning. NABE journal, 8(2), 15-34.

Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Oxon: Routledge.

Spolsky, B. (2009). Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tollefson, J. W. (2006). Critical theory in language policy: An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. NY: Blackwell Publishing.

UNESCO. (2008). Advocacy Brief on Mother Tongue-based Teaching and Education for Girls. Bangkok: UNESCO.

Wright, S. (2007). Language Policy and Language Planning: From Nationalism to Globalisation. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bilingual education is regarded as a huge benefit for young learners. It is believed to have a considerable impact on children’s development not only in relation to the speaking activity but also in many other aspects. The area of the research focus is significant because it is crucial to find out what qualities bilingual education can help to develop and how exactly it influences the progress of preschool children. The question has been studied by many scholars who emphasize the positive influence of bilingual education. The key questions to be addressed in the literature review are concerned with the understanding of children’s early development in relation to bilingual education:

1. Is dual-language learning beneficial or disadvantageous for small children?
2. In what ways can bilingual education be employed in the classroom?
3. What skills can be enhanced with the help of dual-language education at preschool?
4. What methods are most frequently used by researchers to study the outcomes of bilingual education at preschool?

The literature review is going to answer all of these questions in order to present a better understanding of the key issue of research: dual-language education. The findings of scholarly articles dedicated to the chosen theme will be introduced. Also, the review will provide data on the choice of keywords and filters of the search, as well as explain the selection of sources to be analyzed.

There are several theories in child development that directly or indirectly discuss the implications of dual-language learning. According to the psychosexual developmental theory introduced by Freud, a child needs to pass a sequence of stages concentrated on various pleasure areas. Additionally, Freud put emphasis on the importance of learning to resolve conflicts (Conkbayir & Pascal, 2014). Freud remarked that personality was largely established by the age of five. In relation to this theory, the implementation of bilingual education at preschool helps children to deal with conflicts based on the necessity to accommodate to a dual-language environment (Conkbayir & Pascal, 2014).

According to Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, children’s way of thinking differs greatly from the adults’ one (Conkbayir & Pascal, 2014). Piaget’s theory states that children learn to use language at the preoperational stage when they are between two and six years old. During this period, they do not understand concrete logic and cannot adopt other people’s point of view (Conkbayir & Pascal, 2014). Therefore, this approach also encourages to teach children two languages at a preschool age because they are the most likely to accept new knowledge without serious difficulties or biases. The socio-cultural theory introduced by Vygotsky is also related to bilingual education. According to this approach, children’s learning abilities are impacted by their peers, caregivers, and parents. Vygotsky treated learning as a naturally social process (Conkbayir & Pascal, 2014).

The scholar considered that through interactions with other children and adults, preschoolers were able to integrate learning in their perception of the world. According to Vygotsky, the help of more experienced people allows preschoolers to develop their skills (Conkbayir & Pascal, 2014). Thus, bilingual education fits this theory since in dual-language classrooms children are helped by their teachers to acquire new knowledge and communicate with their peers to develop their skills in social interaction. The purpose of the review is to provide relevant data on bilingual education at preschool to help parents and caregivers understand the opportunities for children’s development.

Reference Search and Screening

The databases employed for research were ERIC database and the subject-specific database on education. Such a choice was made in order to find the sources that investigate the key terms of the central research question. These databases are known to incorporate a large number of scholarly peer-reviewed articles that are focused on various dimensions of education.

The keywords that were entered to limit search results were the following: bilingual education, preschoolers, dual language, and preschool development. These keywords helped to prevent the appearance of irrelevant issues in search results. As a consequence, the articles obtained with the help of such a keyword limitation were closely connected to the chosen theme of research.

In order to avoid irrelevant sources in search results, several restrictions were imposed. First of all, the publication date was set between 1990 and 2016. Such a time frame allowed to obtain the most relevant articles in the sphere of education that were focused on the investigation of bilingual learning. Secondly, the sources were filtered by the type. Only ERIC documents and articles in academic journals were interesting for the researcher. No results from books or magazines were accepted.

The choice of the articles to be included in the literature review was determined by the following requirements. The sources had to be the most relevant and easy to read and analyze. Also, they needed to contain all the points included in the matrix so that it would be possible to fill it. Thus, only the sources with a thorough description of the research question, participants, methods, sampling procedures, and research design were chosen for the review.

Analytic Summary of Each Study

The research question in the article by Durán, Roseth, and Hoffman (2010) was: how does the transitional bilingual education (TBE) impact the early literacy development of Spanish-speaking preschoolers? The sample consisted of thirty-one Spanish-speaking preschoolers from two classes at the Head Start site. The age of the participants varied between 38 and 48 months. The authors randomly allocated sixteen children to the English classroom (control group) and the remaining fifteen children to the TBE classroom (experimental group). The data were collected through observation. Five independent variables were included in the study: letter─word identification, receptive vocabulary, alliteration, expressive vocabulary, and rhyming.

The measures were administered two times during the academic year: in September─October and April─May. Researchers found it difficult to ensure the systematic alternation of language order. However, there were no occasions of the same instrument being administered to the same student on the same day. Every examiner had to use only their language with the learners. During the first assessment, the examiners were inspected and received feedback after the evaluation. The research design chosen by the authors was a longitudinal experimental comparison of TBE and English instruction on low-income Spanish-speaking preschoolers’ literacy and language development (Durán et al., 2010). The major finding of the study was that TBE was a useful tool for improving Spanish literacy and language without considerable cost to the development of English literacy.

Orellana (1994) investigated the preschoolers’ bilingual language use in play. The languages spoken by the children were English and Spanish. There were three research questions:

1. How do preschoolers use Spanish and English in spontaneous play?
2. How do institutional, family, and societal use of language impact the preschoolers’ language during playing?
3. What information does the language use present about the developing self-identities of the children? (Orellana, 1994).

There were two constituents of the study’s sample. The major focus was on three children: Carlos (3 years 8 months old), Veronica (3 years 3 months old), and Elisa (2 years 10 months old). The researcher employed convenience sample. The children were picked because they were raised in bilingual families where one parent’s native language was English, and the other’s was Spanish. Elisa was the child of the researcher. In all the families, parents paid more attention to teaching their children Spanish. Apart from that, the researcher analyzed the development of twenty-five children at a bilingual kindergarten. The instruments used to collect data were direct observation and note-taking. The researcher examined children’s language use in the kindergarten and at home.

Upon the observation, Orellana (1994) interviewed the three children. The research design was qualitative phenomenological. The researcher observed the children in natural environments, took notes, and asked them some questions. The findings of the study were as follows. When playing with one another, the three children spoke Spanish, whereas in the English-speaking environment, they chose to speak English. All the children demonstrated flexibility in their language use. The preschoolers’ language development was influenced by the environment (home or school), particularly in consideration with the large social context. Since the children showed equal mastery of Spanish and English, there was a possibility that they might gradually change their language preferences and forget the native language.

The study by Rezzonico et al. (2016) was focused on the investigation of narratives of four- and five-year-old children speaking English and Cantonese. Research aimed at answering the following questions:

1. Are there any differences in the macrostructure of the Cantonese-English bilingual children?
2. Are there any differences in their microstructure?
3. What are the determinants of the children’s micro- and macrostructure results in English?

The study sample included 47 children (23 4-year-olds and 24 5-year-olds) from Canada who spoke both English and Cantonese. At home, Cantonese was used more frequently than English. The participants were to generate a story in both languages with the help of a picture book. The order of languages was counterbalanced.

For measuring nonverbal intelligence, all participants in Cantonese were administered the matrices subtest of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test. For measuring English vocabulary skills, the authors used the expressive one-word picture vocabulary test. The characteristics of the participants were summed up in a table. The researcher employed a cross-sectional design that tested both age groups simultaneously. It was a quantitative correlation study. The major findings of the study were as follows. The children’s grammar was better in English than in Spanish. As the children grew older, they demonstrated the improvement of both languages. Such findings made it possible to predict a possibility of the children’s transferred narrative abilities in Spanish and English.

Saenz et al. (2000) performed a three-year study that investigated preschoolers’ achievements in a Head Start center. The main research question was: how does a three-year language enrichment program change preschoolers’ language skills? 168 children were selected for participation in the study. They were divided into three groups: English-dominant, Spanish-dominant, and mixed dominance (cohorts 1 and 2) or limited English-proficient (cohort 3). The children were classified in accordance with their score on the pre-Idea Proficiency Test (IPT). The test was checked by students studying graduate school psychology and special education. For groups 1 and 2, the authors used two measures: the Preschool Language Scale 3 and the pre-ITP.

For group 3, only the pre-ITP test was used. The test had high validity and reliability rates. It classified the children as non-speakers, limited speakers, or fluent speakers. The main method employed in the study was quantitative research. The type of the study was correlation since the researchers discovered the links between the variables and predicted the necessary changes in the curriculum. In each year, the findings were different. In year one, Spanish-dominant preschoolers demonstrated significant growth in English skills. In year two, the English-dominant group indicated no improvement in English whereas the Spanish-dominant group showed improvement in both languages. In year three, the Spanish-dominant group did not have any improvement in languages but showed progress in other languages. The limited English-proficient group did not demonstrate language progress but demonstrated the improvements in motor and total domains.

The research question in Yow’s (2015) article was: can monolingual and bilingual children’s use of gestures or other cues help them resolve ambiguous pronouns? The sample was composed of 32 4-year-old preschoolers, one half of them being monolingual and the other half being bilingual. The participants were selected on the basis of a language questionnaire filled in by their parents. It was a convenience sample. The measure used to collect data was an individual test performed by the experimenter. Also, the study employed a Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test IV that evaluated the receptive vocabulary. The type of research was quantitative descriptive. The major finding of the article was that preschoolers were able to use gestures and other cues to clarify the ambiguous pronouns.

Cross-Cutting Themes and Directions for Future Projects

Although each of the reviewed articles has different research questions, they also have some things in common. The first cross-cutting theme is the interaction between English and Spanish. The use of these two languages as a basis for researching the bilingual education was discussed by Durán et al. (2010), Orellana (1994), and Saenz et al. (2000). Such a tendency suggests a conclusion that English is frequently paired with Spanish. Owing to these research papers, parents and educators become able to trace the major difficulties preschool children meet when studying two languages simultaneously. Also, the studies suggest much information on the improvement of English and Spanish mastery by young learners.

The second cross-cutting theme is that the authors of the majority of the articles preferred quantitative study design. Such a design was used by Rezzonico et al. (2016), Saenz et al. (2000), and Yow (2015). These researchers provided numerical data as a result of their investigation. In Rezzonico et al.’s (2016) study, the repeated measures ANOVAs were employed to calculate the differences in the macro- and microstructure of the Cantonese-English bilingual children. Saenz et al. (2000) estimated the growth of children’s language skills. Yow (2015) performed the statistical analysis to find the ratios of the monolingual and bilingual children’s median, mean, and variance property valuation.

Contrary to the mentioned three articles, the study by and Orellana (1994) used the qualitative design. The author observed children’s interactions and took notes of whatever she found necessary. Later, the researcher made conclusions based on the observations, but there were no numerical data. Finally, Durán et al. (2010) employed a mixed-method approach. On the one hand, the study contained independent and dependent variables, which is a sign of quantitative research. On the other hand, the authors observed the preschoolers, which signifies the qualitative design.

For future research, the following recommendations are made. First of all, researchers should not choose little samples. Orellana’s (1994) study focused only on three children, which is too little to provide reliability and validity. The same thing concerns the investigation by Durán et al. (2010) that analyzed 31 participants, Rezzonico et al. (2016) that included 47 participants, and Yow (2015) that analyzed 32 children. Since the issue of dual-language learning is becoming more and more crucial, it is necessary to perform the studies with the inclusion of a greater number of participants. By doing so, the authors will be able to eliminate inaccurate findings and biases.

Another suggestion is to perform longitudinal studies. The only research out of the five reviewed articles that lasted for several years was the one by Saenz et al. (2000). Meanwhile, it would be interesting to establish the impact of bilingual education on preschoolers at different stages of their development. Such research may help teachers and parents to decide when and how dual-language education should be initiated and how it should be developed. Additionally, it will help to establish the most common difficulties preschoolers have in bilingual learning and find the ways of minimizing the appearance of such problems. Another suggestion is to include a variety of measures in research of dual-language education. It is crucial to try different ways of assessing children’s abilities in order to find the most productive one.

Conclusion

Based on the review of articles, it is possible to note several significant issues. First of all, bilingual education has a positive impact on the development of preschool children’s language skills. Moreover, dual-language education helps the children to accommodate in different environments better and teaches them to express their opinions in many ways. Researchers focus their investigation on the development of children’s language skills under the circumstances of the bilingual learning environment. This type of education is related to many developmental theories the authors of which emphasized the need for children to cultivate thinking, learn about conflict resolution strategies, and accommodate to various social circumstances.

Research helped to understand the basic principles of bilingual education and the methods preferred by some school programs. At the same time, it revealed that not all school paid equal attention to the development of both languages. Also, it is noted that the question of bilingual education in preschools has not been investigated to the full extent yet. Further studies are necessary in order to cover all the aspects of such type of learning. Educators and caregivers should have a variety of prompts to use at home and preschool in order to make the outcomes of dual-language learning the most beneficial.

The message that can be taken from the literature review is that the dual-education approach should not be underestimated as it provides many advantages for children. Although it may require some accommodation and cause some difficulties at the beginning, bilingual education will eventually lead to positive outcomes in social, personal, and educational dimensions. Therefore, it is crucial to continue investigating this method and increase the knowledge base about it.

References

Conkbayir, M., & Pascal, C. (2014). Early childhood theories and contemporary issues: An introduction. London, UK: Bloomsbury.

Durán, L. K., Roseth, C. J., & Hoffman, P. (2010). An experimental study comparing English-only and transitional bilingual education on Spanish-speaking preschoolers’ early literacy development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 207-217.

Orellana, M. F. (1994). Appropriating the voice of the superheroes: Three preschoolers’ bilingual language uses in play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9(2), 171-193.

Rezzonico, S., Goldberg, A., Mak, K. K.-Y., Yap, S., Milburn, T., Belletti, A., & Girolametto, L. (2016). Narratives in two languages: Storytelling of bilingual Cantonese-English preschoolers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(3), 521-532.

Saenz, A. L., Garza, S., Ochoa, S. H., Leyva, C., Ramirez, E., Carter, N.,… Minness, A. (2000). A three-year evaluation study of a bilingual curriculum program for limited English proficient Hispanic preschoolers in Head Start. In Head Start’s fifth national research conference: Proceedings of a conference (pp. 1-25). Washington, D.C.: US Department of Education.

Yow, W. Q. (2015). Monolingual and bilingual preschoolers’ use of gestures to interpret ambiguous pronouns. Journal of Child Language, 42(6), 1394-1407.

Introduction

The ability to speak two or more languages is very beneficial in the contemporary globalized world; it gives an individual the ability to converse with a wider range of people. People who can speak two languages are called bilinguals, while those who speak one language are called monolinguals. Based on these two terms, there are aspects of bilingualism and monolingualism. In addition to the social benefits of being able to speak to diverse groups of people, recent scientific studies show that bilinguals have some other advantages than monolinguals. Bilinguals have been found to have enhanced cognitive capabilities.

Therefore, the argument that bilinguals are smarter than monolinguals is a shift from the past understanding of bilinguals which considered command of second language as a significant hindrance to the intellectual development of learners. In this paper, I will use secondary data on auditory sustained selective attention task to demonstrate that bilinguals have some cognitive advantages as compared to their monolingual peers. The paper starts with theoretical assumptions, followed by the literature review, the data obtained and the analysis.

Statement of the Problem

For the most of the 20th century, there had been a universally acknowledged notion that bilingual learners’ abilities are impaired as compared to their monolingual counterparts. The understanding was that based on the way the brain of bilinguals functions. For instance, the brain system for two languages is active when the individual is using one language. Therefore, it creates a scenario where one system obstructs the other. This was the handicap the researchers of the 20th century dubbed as a hindrance. However, recent studies show that the same mechanism enhances the cognitive abilities of bilinguals. According to Bialystok et al, it leads to a situation where the brain is prompted to resolve the internal conflicts related with the active language at the time; this gives it an exercise that builds the cognitive muscles (242). Therefore, this paper aims at finding out whether this brain mechanism related to second language is a sign of handicap or a depiction of increased cognitive abilities.

Theoretical Assumptions

Based on the perspective of the competition, the theoretical assumption used in this paper is Inhibitory Control Model. The model has been one of key frameworks for understanding how the brain of bilinguals functions. According to the model, it assumed that bilinguals experience continuous competition which has been described as conflict interference in the lexical presentation of the languages (Shell et al. 2146). The lexical presentation is always active when the individual is reading, speaking and listening. Therefore, to overcome the competition, the brain recruits a control, a function that inhibits the activation of the language that is being used at the time. The inhibition process is not domain-specific; instead, it is rather general and it transfers to other functions that are not necessarily linguistics one (Shell et al. 2147). This leads to clever manipulation of the brain that is also manifested in the executive control. This forms the basis for explaining why bilinguals have been found to be smarter in executing some functions compared to their counterparts. As such, bilinguals are likely to exemplify enhanced capabilities in solving mental puzzles which indicates their enhanced executive function control.

Literature Review

There are different tasks that have been used to measure the cognitive abilities for bilinguals and monolinguals; in most cases they have focused on executive function (EF) control. The tasks have led to the assertion that bilingualism has an effect on the brain that leads to improvement of the cognitive skills that are not related to language. The assertion is supported by various researches that have shown efficiency, development and cognitive abilities gap based on the number of languages an individual can speak; for example, the acquisition of second language makes the brain develop control mechanism during speech.

The issue of language acquisition and its effect on the cognitive development has raised different opinions among researchers striving to determine whether bilingualism amplifies cognitive abilities or hampers them. As such, over time, there have been many studies that have been carried out to examine the positive or negative effects of bilingualism from birth to adulthood. Besides, there have been different assumptions related to the implication of bilingualism as provided in the literature in the 20th and 21st century. For example, Baker related bilingualism to mental deficits and social problems (17). There were researches that supported Baker’s reasoning about the bilingualism that children who spoke two languages were less intelligent that those who spoke one language. However, studies carried out in the 21st century have different implications that in fact show that bilinguals in fact excel one language speakers at fields where the ability to perform skills that require greater control matters the most.

In an experimental study, Kovacs and Mehler studied 20 children aged seven months raised by monolinguals since birth and compared them with 20 infants of the same age raised by parents who were bilinguals (6557). The research involved a task aimed at examining their cognitive abilities by using a switch task that entailed speech cues. The children were more or less equal in regard to factors that could bring variations such as the age, gender, and socioeconomic status for the parents; this was done to avoid disparities which may compromise the results (Kovacs and Mehler 6557). The criteria for children considered bilinguals included those with parents who addressed them consistently in different native languages. The children were tested on the tasks that required the use of the EF; the assumption used for the study was that if the bilingual participants enhances EF, then they were to outperform monolinguals in the tasks that required the use of EF.

Different speech cues were used to test the children and a visual reward was given (Kovacs and Mehler 6557). The reward was a looming puppet that appeared on particular side of screen whenever the children were prompted. In the course of the test, it was established that the children learned how to respond to the visual cue in the anticipation of reward popping out of the screen. However, the bilingual infants suppressed their looks to the required location and learned the pattern for the prompt unlike monolinguals (Kovacs and Mehler 6559). The conclusion from the study was that the two languages contributed to the enhancement of the cognitive control system for bilinguals.

Despite the implication of the cognitive abilities as established in the Kovacs and Mehler study (6556-6560), there are domain-specific tasks monolinguals are generally better at. This could be an indication of systematic deficiency of bilinguals. For example, in the process of word generation, this factor happen to be a disadvantage for bilinguals’ academic performance. In terms of the receptive vocabulary, both the bilingual adults and children have been found to control smaller vocabulary compared to monolinguals; for instance, in a task that involves naming pictures, the former were found to be slower and were not as accurate as the latter (Bialystok et al. 246). These are factors of neuropsychological measure of how the brain functions. However, this pattern of the brain function among monolinguals is contrasted by the abilities of bilinguals in the executive control if the children match based on different background factors. According to Bialystok, executive control is composed of a set of cognitive skills (4).

Studies related to increased cognitive performance of bilinguals in solving conflicting tasks better than monolinguals were also established in a study conducted by Byers-Heinlein and Lew Williams (95). In the study, 8 years old children were involved in different nonverbal task were to solve. Some task included perceptual distraction and other did not have any form of interference. The results of the study were twofold: where there was no perceptual interference, the results were comparable; however, in task where distraction was introduced, bilinguals performed better than monolinguals. There are also other studies that have shown that bilinguals are better off than monolinguals in tasks that are relatively difficult. For example, in directional Simon Task, bilinguals have been found to outperform monolinguals when there are elements of increased monitoring and switching than in cases where there are simpler conditions (Bialystok et al. 246).

From the literature review, it can be inferred that there are differences in the cognitive abilities between monolinguals and bilinguals. Also, it has been shown that in the issues that require executive controls, bilinguals tend to outperform monolinguals. This is the case for both adults and children aged 7 months and more. This body of knowledge brings a new perspective on cognitive abilities associated with bilinguals and sets the ground for more researches and data synthesss in tasks involving monolinguals and bilinguals.

The Data

Most of the studies reviewed have focused on the task performance. However, for this, I will analyze the cognitive ability based on the dimension of attention. The executive function tested in this case is related to the various tasks that are associated to the general brain performance. However, for this paper, the focus is on how bilingualism affects the brain especially in the cortical regions that deal with the processing of the language functioning. The data was collected to test auditory sustained selective attention. The data to be analyzed is retrieved from Krizman et al. (7879). See figure 1 below for the graphical representation of the data.

Analysis of the Data

The findings from the auditory test and the sustained selective attention showed that bilinguals had practical benefits in the sub-cortical representation of the fundamental sound frequency and in the attention abilities related with the strength of the frequency in the multitalker babble. In a quiet medium, the results were different. This task was sound-based unlike the previous studies that have focused on the other activities. Nevertheless, the results are consistent with those of Bialystok et al. (246) and Kovacs and Mehler (6559). They depict bilinguals having some advantages over monolinguals in cases where the aspect of multitasking is introduced. The reasons for the benefits are scientific and relate to how different parts of the brain interpret meaning from either sound or task. The present findings add to the existing body of knowledge that associated bilinguals with some form of benefits in solving conflicting tasks and depicts the organization of the brain for the people who speak two languages.

There are logical explanations that are attributed to the brain organization of the bilinguals; the explanation is based on psycholinguistic studies that apply different tasks such as cross language priming. This is explained as the situation in which a word in one language can be used to facilitate the acquisition or retrieval of a semantically related word in another dialect. Also, the explanation can be related to lexical decision in which an individual who has ability of speaking two or more languages can decide whether some letters constitute a legit word in one of the languages. This denotes the influence of one language on the development of the other. It is important to note that this is a wide field of linguistics and it faces challenges of the study when the bilingual uses languages that may have no lexical relations in the syllables (Bialystok and Luk 397). For the case of the auditory selective attention, it shows a similar concept in which bilinguals can identify varying sound frequencies better than monolinguals.

Similarly, based on the psycholinguistic studies, the findings can be explained on the perspective of how musicians encode sounds. According to Krizman et al., musicians have been found to have cognitive processing abilities similar to those of bilinguals (7880). This has been related to the neural encoding of sound when the music in presented in competing manner. Therefore, bearing in mind that bilinguals’ minds functioning is just like music training, i.e. it is a way of sensory enrichment, which translates to gains in cognition, bilinguals can show enhanced syllable recognition compared to monolinguals. The results also affirm the issues that bilingualism is related to improved metalinguistic awareness, in which the speaker can realize sound as a system that is able to be explored. However, it is important to note there are certain limitations that bilinguals have to endure as was the case of the study by Leonard et al. (3287) that established that bilinguals were outperformed by monolinguals in the word generation.

Also, in studies that have sought to test the cognitive abilities of bilinguals it has been shown that bilingualism enhances visual spatial skills analogical reasoning, concept formation, creativity and foster classification. The findings can be related to the case of the auditory selective attention because the functions deal with executive control. However, Bialystok and Luk pointed out that for the benefits associated with the cognition to be realized, there is a certain level of fluency in the languages that should be achieved (399). For example, Kovacs and Mehler (6557) asserted that cognition skills are mediated by the level of fluency in the languages. The implication for this being a certain level of fluency a child is to achieve to match a level of two language speakers. However, this assertion has been disapproved by the recent studies that show differences in executive control for children aged less than a year. For instance, the study by Kovacs and Mehler that focused on the children aged seven months (6556-6560).

The findings can be understood on the basis of Inhibitory Control Model in which cognitive functions are enhanced through the various brains mechanisms. The model formed the theoretical assumption of the paper and it is related to the concept of language switching. As per the model, Shell, Linck, and Slevc claim that“the people with higher scores domain general inhibitory control tasks tend to do better in the language switching” (2148). Despite the current findings that support the premise of bilinguals having better cognitive skills that monolinguals, there are contradictory findings on how the inhibitory control resolves competition and subsequently leads to bilinguals’ benefits. There have been arguments that the evidence presented is based on correlations and is subject to different explanations.

For example, in relation to the education levels of the people having been tested, the motivation at the time of tests and biases that relate to conditioning of study participants to respond in a particular manner. Even though this is valid school of thought that may bar the absolute conclusion that bilinguals are smarter, the argument needs to be put in the context of the studies that have endeavored to pair subject during the studies based on their backgrounds. Also, as found out in the study carried out by Kovacs and Mehler on children who were aged seven months old, the issue of bias from conditioning does not arise (6550-6557). Also, children brought up talking two languages have been found to select words correctly when they have just started learning to talk, but they can borrow words from either language demonstrating the lexical decision-making process. It is more interesting that the benefits are not confined to acoustic properties of language; the ability to regain attention among bilinguals is higher as compared to monolinguals.

Conclusion

For the current study, the main area of focus was cognition and how it is better exemplified in bilinguals than in monolinguals. Therefore, the literature and tasks that were drawn primarily focused on answering the question ‘why bilinguals are smarter?’ As evidenced from the findings, bilinguals were found to outperform monolinguals in tasks that required the application of the executive function of the brain to solve conflicting issues. As far as executive control supports multitasking, high thought level and the sustained attention are concerned, it can thus be concluded that bilinguals are smarter than monolinguals. It is worth noting that, unlike the neuropsychological measures in which monolinguals may show better results, the executive control function of the brain plays a great function in the academic achievement among the children. Despite the conclusions, it is also important to note that monolinguals playing the second fiddle to bilinguals is not an exclusive study when it comes to different activities; instead, the study centered on the domain of cognition that deals with executive control. Therefore, there is need for further comprehensive investigations that consider other domains of the brain.

Works Cited

Baker, Colin. The care and education of young bilinguals. Clevedon, England: Cambrian Printers Ltd, 2000.

Bialystok, Ellen, and Gigi Luk. “Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual adults.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, vol. 15, no. 2, 2008, pp. 397-401.

Bialystok, Ellen, et al. “Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences vol. 16, no. 4, 2012, pp. 240-250.

Kovács, Melinda, and Jacques Mehler. “Cognitive gains in 7-month-old bilingual infants.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, vol. 106, no. 16, 2009, pp. 6556-6560.

Krizman, Jennifer, et al. “Subcortical encoding of sound is enhanced in bilinguals and relates to executive function advantages.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 109, no. 20, 2012, pp. 7877-7881.

Leonard, Matthew, et al. “Spatiotemporal dynamics of bilingual word processing.” Neuroimage, vol. 49, no.4, 2010, pp. 3286-3294.

Shell, Alison, et al. Examining the role of inhibitory control in bilingual language switching, 2009. Web.

Abstract

The analyzed article describes a study carried out by Thai researchers to evaluate the English vocabulary acquisition in bilingual students. The researchers use a fifteen-minute interview and a five-point scale to assess the learners’ performance. The principal emphasis is put on the lexical side of the language; thus, the researchers carry out a detailed analysis of the vocabulary units that the students employ. The researchers come to a conclusion that the length of studying plays a critical role in vocabulary acquisition. They assume that the relevant practice should be implemented in schools for regular evaluation of bilingual learners’ speech.

Research Question

In the framework of the relevant study, researchers from the Rangsit University, Ruja Pholsward and Donrutai Boonprasitt were determined to estimate the English vocabulary acquisition of primary and secondary students. The researchers focused on bilingual students, thus their key target was to identify “the strengths and limitations” that such learners experience in using English vocabulary (Pholsward & Boonprasitt, 2015, p.8).

Investigated Population

The examined group was comprised of the students from the Satit Bilingual School. The researchers focused on primary and secondary-level learners; therefore, there were 34 primary students and 18 secondary students participating in the study. The selection criteria implied that a participant was supposed to have an experience of a minimum of a three-year experience of learning English. Pholsward and Boonprasitt, likewise, point out that all the students participated in the research with the consent received from their parents and guardians.

Methodology

To complete the ultimate goal of the study, the researchers employed two instruments. The first tool was represented by a questionnaire and was aimed at estimating the communication skills of the participants. The survey contained fifteen questions and was carried out in the form of an oral interview. The second tool was a five-point scale employed to estimate the students’ performance during the interviews. Therefore, the interview served to be an organizational instrument, while the scale played the role of an assessment tool.

It is necessary to note that the discussions were organized with the participation of two interviewers: a bilingual Thai speaker and a native speaker of English. The interviewers applied the relevant scale to measure the lexical, syntax, discursive, interactive, and strategic aspects of a student’s speech. The key emphasis, in the meantime, was put on the lexical side of the language by the initially set research target.

One should necessarily note that the researchers worked out precise criteria defining every level of a five-point scale: full, functional, moderate, sufficient, and marginal. Moreover, to increase the level of accuracy, all the interview data was first recorded and, then, transcribed. This two-stage approach enabled the researchers to avoid the contortion of facts.

Findings

The analysis of the data collected in the course of the fifteen-minute interviews let Pholsward and Boonprasitt generate a series of valuable conclusions. Thence, the principal finding of the relevant study resides in the fact that secondary students show a wider lexical variety than primary learners, whereas their conceptual complexity is relatively equal. Therefore, the duration of learning proved to be significant for a student’s performance – according to the research results, the students with a three-year experience of learning had no limitations in listening and speaking, while the students with a one- or two-year experience would rather show sufficient or marginal level for every aspect.

Another critical finding that the researchers describe reveals the primary students’ intention to receive extra clarifications and express their thoughts in a maximally clear and illegible manner. The relevant tendency is particularly typical of the primary learners from level 2. The researchers note that these students employed more words in their speech, and were generally more talkative. Therefore, this group of learners showed a high willingness to employ the maximal number of vocabulary units in their responses.

Practical Implications

From the pedagogical perspective, relevant research is of significant importance. First, and foremost, the researchers have emphasized the necessity to evaluate the vocabulary acquisition of bilingual learners on the regular basis. Secondly, they worked out an efficient framework for performing such evaluation; hence, they introduced brief interviews carried out by both bilingual and native speakers. Moreover, Pholsward and Boonprasitt managed to develop an efficient and valid scale aimed at measuring various aspects of learners’ speech. Therefore, the researchers offered a detailed description of the evaluating procedure and the tools that should be employed.

One might assume that the suggested approach can be successfully implemented in any school to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the students’ speech. Furthermore, Pholsward and Boonprasitt provided an explicit literature review that enables one to receive a full and precise idea of the research question. One might assume that the data collected in the course of the study might be potentially employed in further research for other levels of bilingual students.

Personal Evaluation

In conclusion, one might note that the offered evaluation method represents an effective alternative to the classic tests that are typically used in schools for estimating bilingual learners’ performance. One should essentially point out that the relevant practice is to be carried out regularly so that a teacher can track the students’ progress and help them eliminate the limitations.

Reference List

Pholsward, R., & Boonprasitt, D. (2015). English Vocabulary Acquisition of Bilingual Learners at the Primary and Secondary Levels. PASAA Journal, 49(1), 1-37.

The contemporary professional life requires specific attention to additional skills and capabilities that can distinguish an individual from others. Bilingualism is the ability to speak two languages fluently or partially that allows an individual to communicate with native speakers. The apparent advantage of this capability provides a person with an opportunity to work in diverse cultural environments. This paper aims to examine bilingualism in professional life and study evidence regarding the benefits of this cognitive ability.

Importance of Bilingualism

The importance of bilingualism at the professional level is displayed through the changes in society as a whole and the advantages that are speaking two languages has. According to Walsh (2015), bilingualism was proven to enhance one’s executive functions such as problem-solving, reasoning, and attention. The experiments conducted with bilingual children showcased their enhanced ability to resolve tasks when compared to kids who only spoke one language. Moreover, Walsh (2015) states that this skill improves cognitive skills, resulting in better memory functioning in older aged people. While these elements mainly refer to the personal benefits that bilingualism provides, they can also be applied at work.

One can argue that the current environment and innovation enable easy cooperation with people from other states or even continents. Lazar (2018) states that the changes affecting the global economy demand individuals to be able to speak more than one language to communicate. In business, this is especially necessary due to the growing importance of multinational companies. Lazar (2018) argues that in the future, the workforce will be heterogeneous in terms of culture and language due to globalization. Therefore, a bilingual individual can bring more benefits to companies in the modern world. Yi and You (2018) state that “the development of foreign trade in various countries has accelerated the demand for international bilingual business professionals in various countries” (p. 248). According to my personal reality, academic perspective, and professional experience, bilingualism provides many advantages. Individuals who know more than one language can communicate with a culturally diverse population, which expands their knowledge and understanding of the world.

Despite the advantages of bilingualism that were discussed above, there are several issues outlined by the recent research. Folke, Ouzia, Bright, De Martino, and Filippi (2016) conclude that bilinguals are unable to assess and evaluate their performance accurately. This issue is connected with the concept of metacognition, which is one’s self-awareness, which appears to be less developed in individuals who speak more than one language. Konnikova (2015) argues that the current research on bilingualism and its advantages provides partial support for the argument of its benefits. Therefore, more large-scale studies are required to determine the validity and importance of this skill in both personal and professional life. However, regardless of the impact of bilingualism on cognitive abilities, metacognition, and resolving tasks, it is evident that speaking a second language provides professional advantages because the person is able to work with individuals from other countries and understand their rationale for actions.

Conclusion

Overall, this paper defined bilingualism and provided evidence suggesting the importance of it in one’s professional life. Research suggests that this skill contributes to the development of several cognitive functions. Additionally, the changing environment of the professional world requires one to have the ability to communicate with people in different countries. However, the downside of this skill is the lack of self-awareness and substantial evidence supporting the conclusions regarding the positive impact of bilingualism.

References

Folke, T., Ouzia, J., Bright, P., De Martino, B., & Filippi, R. (2016). A bilingual disadvantage in metacognitive processing. Cognition, 150, 119-132. Web.

Konnikova, M. (2015).Is bilingualism really an advantage? Web.

Lazar, M. (2018). The bilingual advantage in the global workplace. Web.

Yi, L., & You, Y. (2018). A study on bilingual talents cultivation model of international trade practices from the perspective of production-education integration and school-enterprise cooperation. Paper presented at the 8Th International Conference On Education, Management, Information, And Management Society (EMIM 2018). Web.

Walsh, B. (2015). Bilingualism as a life experience.Web.

Introduction

Bilingual education is a programme that is designed to offer education to foreigners or minority groups in their native language. This system has been in place for many years now and dates back to the 1960s.

Its history is as follows: In the 1960s, there was a high influx of foreigners who were Spanish and Mexican. They realized that there was a problem with the current education system because most of the Spanish students were quitting school. The Spaniards did not find it relevant as they couldn’t understand what was being taught. They decided to protest against this. The American president at that time gave them a listening ear. He signed an Act allowing non English speakers to be taught in their native language and to broaden their horizons. This law was reviewed in the 1970s to rectify its anomalies and to make it more efficient.

A number of questions and arguments have been put forward for or against these programmes. In this system, English is a secondary language geared to making students catch up with their academics until they can get comfortable enough to join mainstream English classes.

What l think about bilingual education

‘Bilingual education is a step backward in our education system’

There are plenty of critics in the country opposing this programme and here are the disadvantages;

First of all, students are denied the opportunity to improve their language skills. The question most foreign students normally ask themselves is; what is the need of improving my English when l can still acquire knowledge in another language? Consequently these students relax and may never be fluent in English.

During its inception, bilingual education was formed with the main aim of preparing non- English students to fit into English speaking classes. But this good intention has remained theoretical. In reality, students simply go on and on in bilingual classes without graduating into mainstream classes (Glodis, 2000).

Bilingual classes bring about isolation of students attending those classes. In most schools offering this programme, bilingual classes are situated at a totally different location from other mainstream classes. This makes the minorities appear different and other students may not view them as part of the school. In other words, discrimination may spring up. This is because students become dependent on their native language and cannot blend in with the rest of society (Rosell, 1996).

Bilingual education does not allow students to enjoy benefits of both worlds. This is because students only enjoy scientific, historical and literary works in their own language. They are not able to have a deeper understanding of other people’s culture and way of thinking as views will only be from one side.

Foreign students who attend mainstream classes develop a sense of tolerance of other people’s culture. They get to interact with native students and learn their way of life. However, this is not the case with bilingual programmes.

Bilingual education encourages students to learn only one language. If these students were in mainstream classes, they would be proficient in two languages. Research has shown that most students who can speak two languages or more have a high intelligence quotient. This is because students become great thinkers since they associate two words with one object. Bilingual education thus slows down or prevents foreign students from learning two languages and exploiting their full academic potential.

If a student attends a bilingual class during his/her entire stay in college, then he/she will have fewer employment opportunities in the country or in the community. This is because most industries like banking, accountancy, marketing, law, medicine and education all involve reading and writing English. Besides, one needs to interact with clients or with fellow staff members. However, this is not possible when students are not proficient in English. It should be noted; that students may be able to speak English but may have a problem writing or reading it properly hence they will be unable to apply the skill acquired from a bilingual school (Rosell, 1996).

Foreign students attending mainstream classes have a higher self esteem than those attending bilingual classes. This is because research has shown that students who are proficient in two languages or more feel better about themselves. They are confident in both languages and feel like they have an added advantage over their monolingual counterparts (Glodis, 2000).

It has also been shown that students attending bilingual classes have not shown any academic improvement. For example in the state of California, it was found that 17 % of Spanish speaking students drop out of school while in mainstream classes the number is lower than this amount by seven percent. It was also found that lees than five percent of students graduate from bilingual classes to mainstream classes. The duration by these students is also excessively high. It was found that some students took about 7 years to complete a course in a bilingual school than the normal 3 years in a mainstream class.

The study further reinforces the idea of failure by the bilingual programme in that, test scores of foreigners in bilingual classes are lower than those foreigners in mainstream classes hence showing that the education system is ineffective (Rodriguez, 1998).

The government is spending a huge sum of money on this system which doesn’t even yield results. This therefore means that state resources are going to waste.

Teachers in bilingual classes are paid much more than those teaching regular classes. This is no small amount; it can be about four thousand dollars more than regular teachers. These teachers have to be trained and the government has to invest so much just to hire them. Millions are going into this programme yet no tangible results are coming from it. Unless the bilingual system is improved, it will simply be viewed as a waste of resources that could have been more useful in another industry (August, 1997).

The bilingual system has brought about a lot of discontent from parents of these foreign students. This because they know that one cannot excel without proper English knowledge. Some Latin speaking parents in Los Angeles have protested over their children’s attendance of bilingual classes. This is an indication that it is a failing system if the people it was designed to help are now protesting against it.

Bilingual education divides the country ethnically. This is an impediment to the unity of the country. Language is a symbol used to unify a country. If one mentions the country United States of America, then it is immediately associated with English speakers. This will not be the case if immigrants are allowed to live in the country with scanty knowledge of the language. Latinos will keep to themselves, Russians will keep to themselves and so will the natives (Glodis, 2000).

English is a secondary language in these bilingual classes. Yet linguists argue that language is best learnt in a free environment from peers. However, this is not the case in these schools. A language is quite difficult to learn when it is taught in a matter of fact way within a classroom setting. If foreign students attended class with plenty of English speakers, then they would learn the language very fast.

A number of factors have been put forward to support the bilingual education system. Some of the advantages of bilingual education include;

Bilingual education helps students with little or no English skills to acquire knowledge. This means that if the programme was not in existence, then foreign students would have to first learn the language proficiently before they can start going to school. This would be a great a hindrance to their learning process.

Teaching students in a language they understand, improves academic performance. This is because students will not have to waste valuable time trying to figure out what concepts mean or translate facts then understand them. They will be focusing on the subject matter and not on the language used or what it could possibly mean in their native language.

Bilingual education instills a sense of pride in one’s culture. Students attending these classes will feel that their languages are good enough to be used as a medium of exchange. It makes them feel confident that their culture is not inferior. Also, because English is still taught in these classes, then students are able to appreciate the diversity of culture in the country (August, 1997).

Bilingual education gives foreign students a sense of identity. They do not feel like they have totally lost themselves in other people’s way of life. This gives them a sense of security and purpose in life.

Conclusion

It is quite clear from the above arguments that the bilingual education system has not succeeded. It had quite noble intentions at its inception but this has not to come to pass. It has instead bred a group of ill equipped students, who have very limited knowledge of English, are dependent on their languages, perform poorly in class and have no place in the real world outside their schools.

It should be noted however, that the spirit behind the bilingual system should be borrowed and used to implement a new programme. The purpose of establishing a bilingual system was to integrate foreign students who had little knowledge in English and to provide them with an opportunity of acquiring knowledge regardless of their shortcomings.

There was a system of ‘swim or float’ in the 1970s, where students who couldn’t fit in with the countries’ culture were secluded. This is abit too harsh.

My recommendation would be a new system called immersion classes. These classes have already begun in some parts of the country. They involve teaching foreigners the English language and other lessons or crucial facts about the American society. These are skills for life. They will enable foreign students to integrate easily and quickly into the country. The classes will pick specific issues that are important for survival and students need not spend a lot of time in these institutions. They can be perceived as bridging courses that will give these students a chance to access equal opportunities in the education system, workplace and in their social lives.

References

August (1997); Improving Schooling for Language Minority Children: A Research Agenda, National Academy Press.

Rosell, K. (1996): The effectiveness of bilingual education. , a journal by Rossell Keith.

Glodis, G. (2000); Current Bilingual Education Fails, MA Telegram

Rodriguez, G. (1998); English lesson in California: The Nation

Outline

There has been a very controversial debate in U.S, where Americans and government officials have been arguing over the implementation of laws of “English only”. Those opposing the implementation of these laws propose that, bilingualism should be allowed in various official operations, which is prohibited by laws of “English only”. Due to lack of enough support against bilingualism, law that would require English to be the only language for official use in U.S was not passed. Therefore, these laws were and are still being implemented at state levels in some states in America.

Introduction

According to (Sandra12), laws that require English to be the only official language that should be in U.S were introduced at the state level as well as the federal level in 1990s. These laws required all public operations in U.S government and that of its states to be conducted in English including resolutions, elections, judicial proceedings, orders and records. Laws that require English to be the only language that should be used in U.S came as an opposition to the decision that allowed other languages to be used in U.S. Previously, the Supreme Court of U.S and the Act of Civil Rights had mandated a support of language for those students who were not proficient in English. This decision by Supreme Court stated that, it would be discriminative to provide instructions to students in English language only. Discrimination of students due to their sex, race, national origin as well as color was prohibited. “For learning to be effective, students had to be in a position to communicate with their teachers as well as other students” (Sandra13). This rendered requirements for the possession of English skills before getting engaged in regular learning a very unfair decision for students who were not proficient in English. Up to this day, there is a continuing debate on whether it is fair to have English language as the only language that should be used in U.S official operations.

According to (Sandra14-15), supporters of bilingualism argue that, it is necessary for students be confident in expressing themselves in their different native languages prior to the introduction of English curriculum. However, supporters of laws that require English to be the only language that should be used in U.S and its states argue that, if students who lack proficiency in English are made to learn English as early as possible, it will benefit them in learning as well as in communication processes later in life. These laws of “English only” were fueled in 1980s by a movement that was opposed to bilingualism and arguments of this political movement were supported by cultural conservatives, where the use of English language only was said to result to social cohesion. Laws of “English only” regard bilingualism as a source of social separation on ethnical grounds. However, the movement that was in support of “English only” laws lost power when it was realized that, there was a connection between members of the movement with organizations that advocated the control of population in U.S as well as immigration restrictions.

It was not long before support for laws of “English only” gained support again, which took place in 1990s. This was followed by the passing of an Act that empowered English language which proposed restriction of bilingualism in official operations including instructions to students who were not fluent in English. However, it was not possible to have the law of “English only” passed since there lacked national laws that restricted bilingualism. This meant that, since it was not possible to make demands for English as the only language to be used in U.S part of law, it would not be included in the constitution. Therefore, it was left to individual state governments to impact the demands in their own states which have brought about heated debates from the supporters of bilingualism. (Michael 38-40)

Debate on Laws of “English Only” And Bilingualism at the State Level

According to (Jill 44-47), a number of states have already made English the only language that is used in their official operations among them being California which introduced this practice in 1998. This was after the supporters of laws of English only exceeded those of bilingualism, which restricted programs of bilingual education from being carried out in California’s public schools.

Students who lacked proficiency in English were required to go through English immersion programs before being accepted in courses that were taught in English. This did not go unchallenged since California had registered the most number of students who were not proficient in English than other U.S states and were therefore in support of bilingualism. This opposition resulted to a challenge of the proposition of Laws of English only in federal as well as state courts.

Implementation of laws of “English only” in some of U.S states have left a large number of elderly immigrants who are not proficient in English to find it hard to vote due to lack of provision for bilingual ballots. Bilingualism supporters maintain that, the provision for campaign materials in other languages would allow voters who are not proficient in English to be more informed before engaging themselves in voting processes. On the other hand, it is argued that, a single official language which in this particular case is English would help U.S government in unifying its citizens who are diversified. This has been in response to a census that was conducted in1900 that revealed that, thirty two million people in U.S live in households where other languages are spoken and fourteen million people out of the large number are not proficient in English. (Carol 67)

In 1995, Bob Dole addressed attendants of an American convention stating that, the restoration of America’s greatness would demand for more than bringing back the country’s defenses. He argued that, Americans have to revisit the concepts that feature the meaning of true American citizenship. He sited an example where English needs to be taken as the country’s official language, requiring its citizens to put aside other languages that bind them to their native countries and become united in one language for the whole of America’s population. Members of a particular advocacy group referred to as U.S English, have a different proposal from other supporters of laws of “English only” as they argue that, it would be appropriate to have English as the primary language of U.S but it should not be used as the exclusive language. They continue to argue that only official proceedings should have English as the only language used, giving allowances for bilingualism in some places like police stations, hospitals, tourist sites and emergency rooms. (Taylor 47-48)

Supporters of bilingualism argue that implementation of laws that require English as the only language to be spoken is a reaction that would portray hostility to the rapidly increasing number of immigrants who are entering U.S day in day out. This accusation was supported by Bill Clinton when he was addressing a group of Hispanic Caucus. Clinton said that, he was not against English being an official language for America, but was worried whether young children who migrated to America would be in a position to comprehend other things that were taught in English. He was also worried whether those hardworking Americans who pay taxes but are not proficient in English would be in a position to cast their votes like any other citizen of America. In 1995, Parris who was a Governor of Maryland opposed a bill that required the state of Maryland to have English as the only language that would be used in official operations of the state. “Implementation of such a bill would cause separation among Americans living in Maryland” (Carol 68-71)

(Rosa 25-27) found out that, another instance was in the state of Arizona where supporters of bilingualism sued Arizona’s Governor together with state officials who were in support of laws of “English only” so as to stop them from enforcing that law in their state. Utah is another state that had laws of English only integrated in their state’s constitution which took place in 2000. However, it was attacked by voters who pointed out some areas where Utah’s lawmakers had not taken consideration of. They argued that, law had provided some exceptions where bilingualism was allowed, among them being public health as well as public education. These measures were to be read to prohibit an exercise of bilingualism in Utah. This made the union of Civil liberties sue officials who had passed the law, where the union represented nonprofit organizations and government employees who were to be negatively affected by the law. This led to ruling that put limitations to the provisions of that law by a district court in Utah which argued that, the law should not limit the use of bilingualism among elected officials as well as government employees.

Conclusion

Even as more states continue to carry out negotiations that are supposed to culminate in the implementation of laws of “English only” in their respective states, debate on whether this practice will unite Americans or separate them still continues. (Taylor 49) Supporters of bilingualism argue that, United States’ naturalization of its citizens can be achieved without having everyone using English as their language of communication; be it immigrants or indigenous U.S citizens. On the contrary, supporters of laws of “English only” argue that, it is only through the use of a uniform language that Americans will be united since according to them, bilingualism divides Americans on ethnical grounds. “It would be appropriate for the federal government to intervene and bring the debate to an end where Americans should also exercise some level of flexibility in order to have universal unity” (Guadalupe18-22).

References

Carol L. Conflict, identity and cultural pluralism in comparative perspective: Oxford University Press, 2001 pp 67-71.

Guadalupe S. The rise and fall of federal bilingual education in the United States: University of North Texas press, 2004 pp18-22.

Jill N. American Cultural pluralism and law: Greenwood publishing group, 1996 pp 44-47.

Michael A. Languages in a globalizing world: Cambridge University Press, 2003 pp 38-40.

Rosa C. Bilingual education: ABC-CLIO 2002 pp 25-27.

Sandra D. Language rights and the law in the United States: Multilingual Matters, 2003 pp12-15.

Taylor J. California politics, propositions and people of color: Greenwood publishing Group, 2001 pp 47-49.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/6488/English-Only-Laws.html