• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Native bilingualism as a strategy to promote bilingualism

Native bilingualism as a strategy to promote bilingualism






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



3 Embeds 20

http://call-me-teacher.blogspot.com.es 18
http://www.scoop.it 1
http://call-me-teacher.blogspot.ru 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Native bilingualism as a strategy to promote bilingualism Native bilingualism as a strategy to promote bilingualism Presentation Transcript

    • Native bilingualism as astrategy to promote language diversity Roberto Criollo
    • Language diversityNumber of world languages: over 6,000
    • Source: UNESCO
    • Language death Mexico: 297 languages Official language? A language dies when it is no longer learnt as a mother tongue.
    • Mother tongue What is it? How many?
    • Bilingualism The ability that some individuals have, in varying degrees, to use two languages (Baker, 2001). There is a ‘strong’ and a ‘weak’ version of bilingualism (Baker, 2001; Elmiger, 2000; Gleason & Ratner, 1998; Moreno 1998).
    • Individual Bilingualism Coordinate Bilingualism: 2 languages, 2 contexts. Compound Bilingualism (“pure”): 2 languages, 1 environment. Subcoordinate Bilingualism: 1 language dominates.(Baker, 2001; D’Acierno 1990; Moreno 1998)
    • Social Bilingualism Additive Bilingualism Subtractive Bilingualism(Baker, 2001; Diebold, 1966; Moreno, 1998)
    • Native Bilingualism Bilingualism dating from simultaneous learning of two languages during the initial stages of language acquisition (Arnberg, 1987; Kessler, 1984; Taeschner, 1983). “Producing native bilingual children is not easy, and neither is maintaining their bilingual skills when they are living in an environment that uses only one of the languages (Gleason & Ratner, 1998)
    •  Children need at least 20 hours of exposure to a language per week to acquire productive skills in it (Pearson, Fernandez, Lewedeg, & Oller, 1999). “Passive” bilingualism (Kamada 1997).
    • Language Planning at home  Languages to be used at home  Monolingual families  Bilingual/plurilingual families  What language(s) for the children?
    • Strategies1. One person, one language2. Language of home vs language of the community3. Mixed languages
    • Issues in Native Bilingualism
    • Language Delay & Low Achievement Children’s linguistic production can be delayed in native bilinguals, or they may do poorly in school (Baker 2000). Children learning two languages may show low vocabulary scores during preschool years (Baker, 2001; Gleason & Ratner, 1998). However, Doyle et al. (1977) found that bilingual preschoolers are not delayed.
    •  Bilingual programs are not as effective as expected (Amsell, 1996; Gonzalez, 1981) Some researchers, however, think that bilinguals have advantages over monolinguals (Baker, 1998, 2000 and 2001; Diaz, 1985; Garcia, 1990; Hakuta, 1984, 1985, and 1990; Kloosterman & Diaz, 1995; Saunders, 1982).
    •  Among these, abstract thinking, immediate translation, metalinguistic ability, and non-verbal/abstract thinking are mentioned. Some other studies also argue that early bilingualism can have a positive effect on subsequent adult language learning Doyle et al., 1977). There is also serious criticism regarding bilingual education policies (Campoverde 1985; Charter, 1991; Gonzales 1993; Hakuta, 1990).
    • Code Switching Utterances where elements of both languages are used; i.e. Spanglish (Baker, 2000; Diaz, 1985 Taeschner, 1983; Fantini, 1985; Zentella, 1981). Considered by some as evidence that bilinguals speak neither language really well (Gleason & Ratner, 1998). Some researchers have found that CS may be due to inconsistencies in the input(Doyle et al, 1977).
    • Unitary Language System Hypothesis Related to Code-Switching, it argues that in bilingual children there is only one system underlying production in both languages (Baker, 2001; Kessler, 1984). Some researchers (Bergman, 1975; Kessler, 1984) believe that, in fact, there are two stages of development, single and differentiated.
    • Language Attrition/One Language Dominance Losing one language through disuse (Gleason & Ratner, 1998; Kamada, 1997)). In bilinguals, term referring to the fact that bilinguals will tend to lose one language in time (Kamada, 1997- mother’s language). Dominance refers to the fact that bilinguals are unlikely to be equally good in all aspects of both languages (Grosjean, 1982).
    • Metalinguistic Awareness Ability to reflect on one’s language use and knowledge (Gleason & Ratner, 1998; Genesee, Boivin, & Nicoladis, 1996; Hakuta, 1990; Hakuta & Diaz, 1985; Kessler, 1984; Reynolds, 1990). For example, children know when and with whom they should use each language, can identify the two languages, and are ‘experts’ in translation.
    • Advantages of Native bilingualism Natural process, free of sociolinguistic prejudice. Language preservation or revitalization. Multilingual/multi-cultural individuals that can function in a variety of contexts.