Coming of Age in Applied Linguistics

7/21/2019 Coming of Age in Applied Linguistics

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/coming-of-age-in-applied-linguistics 1/22

C oming of Age in Applied Lingu ist ics

E l l en B i al ystok York U ni ver si ty

I a rgue tha t furt her progress in applied linguistics ands eco n d l an g u ag e acq u i s i t i o n (SLA ) w i l l b e ach i ev edthrough collaboration with researchers in other fields. Igive 3 examples of research problems that would profitfrom colla bora tion w ith a pplied linguist s: t he definit ion oflan gua ge proficiency, th e neura l basis of lan gua ge function-ing, a nd t he rela tion betw een cognitive an d lan gua ge a bili-t i es , espec ia l ly in educa t ion . These i s sues a re be inginvest igated by special is ts in other f ields who lack thenecessary exper t i se in b i l ingua l i sm, SLA, and repre-sent a tion of multiple la ngu a ges. I ident ify specific a rea s ofexpert ise t ha t a pplied l inguists could bring t o t hese re-search progra mmes.

Disciplines a re like people—th ey begin life w ith a few t ent a -t ive steps, exert excessive bra va do thr ough a n unform ed a doles-cence, gobble up the w orld in th e excitem ent of young a dult hood,

a nd lear n hum ility a nd respect in middle a ge, retrea ting event u-a l ly in to a wise and aged twi l igh t . The pa t te rn i s anc ien t andun iversa l, but it is impossible t o persua de people, or th e pra ctit io-ners of th e discipline for th a t m a tt er, th a t th eir sta ge is inevita blea nd t heir pa t h is determin ed. P eople prefer t he illusion of uniq ue-ness a nd cont rol of their dest iny. B ut it is just th a t —illusion, an d

L anguage Learn ing 48:4, December 1998, pp. 497–518

Correspondence concerning t his paper ma y be a ddressed to the a uth or a tDepar tm ent of P sychology, York U niversity, 4700 K eele St reet, Toronto,Ont a rio, Ca na da M3J 1P3; Intern et: [email protected]

497







become outward looking and are no longer consumed solely by

pa rochia l ma tt ers. They st op a pologising for w ho they a re, losingsome of their defensiveness as they accept their natural l imita-t ions. There is a ga in in r especta bility a nd a loss of innocence.

Applied linguist ics ha s rea ched th e sta ge of a dult hood. As a na dult member of the scientific comm unit y, it must ta ke i ts pla ceon a wider s ta ge t o develop mea ningful connect ions to otherdisciplines and forge areas of co-operation with them. Appliedl inguists must become pa rt ners in a n effort to solve the la rgerproblems, those tha t ma y exceed the n a rrow bounda ries of thediscipline but indisput a bly involve i t . Applied l inguistics ha smuch to ga in from such a par tn ership. It must a da pt methodolo-gies crea ted for different problems a nd int egra te the theories an dconcepts developed in independent areas to achieve a more pro-found a nd broadly ba sed understa nding of la ngua ge. At t he sa met ime , app l i ed l i ngu i s t i c s has much to con t r ibu te . I t s unde r-

st a ndin g of la ngua ge functioning in the la rge sense, including t herela t ion betw een firs t a n d second la ng ua ge (L1 a nd L2), t he effect sof inst ructiona l a ltern a tives, th e role of individua l lear ner cha ra c-terist ics, th e impa ct of forma l l inguistic structure on lea rning a nL2, to na me but a few issues, is ar gua bly th e most comprehensiveand well-art iculated in any language-related field. The currentcha l lenge fa cing la ngua ge studies is t o ma ke this col la bora t ionwork.

The responsibil i ty for applied l inguists now is to becomeinvolved in discussions that require interdisciplinary solutions.The cha llenge facing t he field in th e imm edia t e fut ur e is to becomefull col la bora tors w ith resea rchers from other a reas in order tojoint ly ra ise th e level of deba t e a nd fin d solut ions to more complexproblems. Over th e pa st t w o deca des, t he tenet s of a pplied linguis-t ics ha ve ha d a subt le but profound influence in a reas t ha t ha dpreviously resisted a cknow ledgement of the field’s a genda . It ha sbecome increasingly impossible for researchers in other areas toignore t he perspect ive of S LA in st udies of L1 a cqu isi t ion. Them o n ol in g u a l E n g l is h s p ea k er h a s l os t g ro u n d a s t h e q u i n t e s -sen t i a l pu rveyor of l an gua ge. Resea r che rs a re more l i kely to

500 L angu age L ear n i n g Vol . 48, N o. 4



acknowledge the “messy” condi t ions of language use, such as

pragma tic cont ext , social pressures on dialect , motiva t ion, a ndother intrusions on language competence. Building on this mo-men t um , a pplied linguist s a re in a position to conf ront som e of t hema jor problems in lan gua ge an d cognition.

The new front ier for a pplied linguist ics is t o ent er t he com-plex realm of lan gua ge studies in t he broa der sense a nd t o ta keon t he issues t ha t a re not confined to single cont ext s or n a rrow bounda ries. To do t his, a pplied lingu ist s mus t become conversa ntw ith t he theories a nd met hods from other disciplines, just a s th eymust teach the i r own techniques to o thers . I wi l l g ive th reeexa mples of issues th a t w ill only be solved th rough colla bora t iona nd tha t w ill ha ve a n impa ct on resear ch an d th inking in a va rietyof bot h ba sic a nd a pplied a rea s. These ar e the definit ion of la n-gua ge proficiency, the neura l ba sis of la ngua ge functioning, an dth e relat ion betw een cognitive a nd la ngua ge a bili t ies, especia lly

in education.

Th e Cont ext of P r ofi ci en cy

Linguis t s t a lk about language as though i t had concre teexistence and could be measured by scientific instruments, de-scribing it s a cq uisition a s t hough people moved irrevoca bly froma state of innocence to one of mastery along a predictable path.

They ident ify la ngua ge impair ment, la ngua ge dela y, a nd la ngua geprecoci ty wi thout ever spec i fy ing the s tandard aga ins t whichthese ca ses a re t o be judged. E xperimenters use “la ngua ge” inresea rch designs a s both a dependent a nd a n independent va ri -a ble, choosing fra gment s to serve a s stimu li but concluding tru t hstha t define the doma in. B ut w ha t is the norm for la ngua ge com-petence? What does language proficiency mean? What are i tscomponents and what is the range of acceptable varia t ion? Al-th ough th ese questions ma y seem prior to a ny use of la ngua ge a sa research inst rument or conclusion about language abi l i ty inindividuals, linguists a lmost never a ddress t hem explicit ly. It istim e to confr ont t his cha llenge.

B i al ystok 501



The definition of language proficiency is completely entan-

gled in theoretical attitude. For a formalist, language proficiencyis a n ult ima t ely unknowa ble a bstra ction th a t reflects th e univer-sa l competence of na t ive spea kers (NS s). For a functiona list, it isth e out come of socia l int eraction w ith a l inguistic environment.The cont ra d ict ion i s l ess s t a rk tha n i t might a ppea r—the t w otheoretical approaches have simply defined the problem differ-ently. Form a l a pproaches a tt empt to explain la ngua ge; funct iona la pproa ches a t t empt to expla in communica t ion. B ut w here doesthat leave language proficiency? The term appears to convey aclea r mea ning in i ts n ont echnical a pplica tion; th a t is, in ordina rylanguage use. On closer inspection, i ts use as a scientific termmea ns very l it t le.

There a re both th eoretica l a nd pra ctica l rea sons for comingto some consensu s a bout w ha t is enta iled by la ngua ge proficiency.The theoretica l mot iva tion is th a t t here will never be mea nin gful

dialogue between those holding alternative conceptions of lan-gua ge (e.g., form a l an d functiona l view s) unt il th ere is ag reementon w ha t is mea nt by la ngua ge proficiency. The pra ctica l reas on isth a t issues in educa tion, la ngua ge disa bili ty, a nd a pha sia , to na mea few, require a clear definit ion of norma l sta nda rds for la ngua geproficiency.

Consider first th e th eoretica l issues. At present, a rgument sand explana t ions about language acquis i t ion and use tha t a re

expounded from different th eoretica l perspectives a re incomm en-sura te beca use th ey ar e not even add ressing th e sa me questions.La ngua ge must enta i l both forma l s t ructure a nd communica t ivea pplica tion, it must evolve from a prepar ed min d a nd be nur tu redby a support ive cont ext , it must set clea r s t a nda rds of use andinclude dispa ra te va ria tions from the rules. Linguists need a w a yof organiz ing th i s mul t ip l ic i ty of language sk i l l s and charac-terist ics into a coherent sta tement a bout t he hum a n pot entia l tolearn and use language . Language prof ic iency i s the goa l fo rhum a ns t o achieve an d l inguists t o describe. If t here is no a gree-ment a bout w ha t is included in la ngua ge proficiency, then a ny




explana t ion tha t a t t empts to probe some of the more profound

my ster ies of lan gua ge will be incomplete.One method for achieving a proper definit ion for language

proficiency is t hr ough observa t ion a nd descr iption. Resea rcher s inL1 a cq uisition ha ve ma de great progress in specifying t he descrip-t ive aspects of normal language development . In a large-scalest udy, Fenson et a l. (1994) docum ent ed th e milestones of la ngu a gea cquisi t ion in a sam ple of m ore t ha n 1800 children. Althoughcrucia l , th is is only a sma ll pa rt of w ha t is required for a properdefinition for language proficiency, which must specify norms notonly for the acquisit ion of language by children but also for theuse of la ngua ge by ad ult s in a va riety of socia l cont ext s, pra gma ticsitua tions, a nd cult ura l milieus, using different la ngua ges a loneand in combina t ion wi th each o ther. Descr ip t ive norms mustinclude t he ra ng e of la ng ua ge experiences encoun t ered by childrenbeing ra ised a s bil ingual a nd a dults functioning in different la n-

guages for different purposes. An important s tart ing point forthese descriptions is the comprehensive work compiled by Slobin(e.g., 1985, 1992) in his seri es of crosslin gu ist ic st ud ies of la ng ua geacquisit ion. These descriptions must be analysed to extract theessential properties of language proficiency across the variety ofsitua tions, a nd th is ta sk is best ha ndled by a pplied l inguists w hoa re sensit ive to the pra ct ica l a nd experient ia l uses of lan gua ge.

La ngu a ge proficiency mu st a lso include det a ils of the socia l

and cultural contexts in which language is used. Pinker (1994)rela ted t he story of D izzy Dea n, a 1950s sport s comm ent a tor, w howould use such phrases as “He slood into second base.” Usingforma l a nd r igid cri teria , one w ould be forced t o conclude tha tDea n suffered from some la ngua ge disorder, or a t th e very lea stth a t he possessed a n unusu a lly poorly developed ma ster y of Eng-lish. B ut P inker point s out t ha t such uses w ere a n a ccepta ble pa rtof his na t ive Arka nsa s dia lect . Dea n, in other w ords, w a s a profi-cient spea ker of a regiona l var ia nt of En glish.

Ra mpt on (1997) gives a n exa m ple of t he problem by illust ra t -ing how an overly-narrow defini t ion of language competence,especially in terms of gaps in that competence, has produced a

B i al ystok 503



body of resea rch on commun ica tion str a tegies for L2 lea rn ers tha t

fa ils to ca pture essentia l fea t ures. H e demonst ra tes how cha ngesin th e sociolinguist ic cont ext , a bsent in virt ua lly all a na lyses of L2comm unica tion, ra dica lly a lter the perception of w ha t th e prima rycommunica t ion st ra tegies a re a nd w hy lea rners select the onesth ey do. H e ar gues for a more l ibera l int erpreta t ion of la ngua geuse th a t includes these sociol inguist ic dimensions a s a cent ra lelement . The problem th a t R a mpt on identified is a d irect conse-qu ence of resear chers t rea tin g la ngua ge proficiency in too rigidlyform a l terms. If comm unica ting in a n L 2 is to be considered a s acentra l a spect of la ngua ge lea rning a nd use, a s surely i t must, th enlinguists need t o underst a nd t his comm unica tion in a more com-plete sense.

The need to solve the problem of defining language profi-ciency is not simply motivated by theoretical niceties or philo-s o p h i ca l a e s t h e t i c s. I t i s a n i s s u e w i t h s e r i ou s p r a ct i ca l

implica t ions to bot h resear ch a nd pra ct ice in lan gua ge stu dies. Inresea rch in SL A a nd bilingua lism, a proper definit ion of la ngua geproficiency w ould present a n ident ifia ble sta nda rd a ga inst w hichto describe the lan guage skil ls of users in different contexts .H a rr is a nd N elson (1992) described some of th e cha os tha t a risesin a t tem pts t o define “bilingua lism” beca use there is no consensuson w ha t degree or t ype of proficiency in wh ich la ngu a ge is req uir edfor th e la bel t o a pply. Resea rch offers a m yr ia d of exa mples of th is

point . In a s tudy of the cogni t ive effects of bil ingua l ism in apopulat ion of universi ty s tudents (an apparent ly homogenousgroup of bilingua ls), Lemm on a nd G oggin (1989) found a diversea rra y of sk il l s th a t d i s t inguished am ong th e b i lingua ls in ca te -g or i ca l wa y s t h a t w ere c on f irm ed b y f a ct or a n a l y si s. S i m p leconceptions of proficiency, even in t he t w o la ng ua ges, could n otca pture th e import a nt a bili ty differences am ong t he populat ion.At th e very lea st , an objective definition of lan gua ge proficiencyw ould a llow resea rchers t o be more precise in sta ting t he na tur e ofth eir pa rticipa nt s’ competence. U ndoubtedly, st a nda rdized d escrip-tions of tha t type w ould immedia tely dispel countless a ppa rent ly




cont ra dictory results ca used by different a bilities in the resea rch

part ic ipants .Anoth er a pplica t ion of a proper definition of la ngu a ge profi-

ciency is in the ident ifica t ion of abn orm a l pa t tern s of la ngua ge usea nd development . At present , th e crit eria a re genera lly present edin term s of nega t ive fea t ures, a list of w ha t is not pa rt of t he profileof th e la ngua ge-disa bled child. Leona rd (1998), for exa mple, st a t edth a t “children wit h S LI experience significa nt l imita t ions in la n-guage abi l i ty that cannot be at t r ibuted to problems of hearing,neurologica l st a tus, nonverba l int ell igence, or oth er kn ow n fa c-tors” (p. 25). H e w ent on t o point out th a t t he resultin g cla ssifica -t ion yields a n ext rem ely het erogeneous group w ho differ from ea chot her in th e a spect of la ngua ge t ha t poses difficult y, th eir rela t iveskil ls in comprehension a nd product ion, a nd oth er deta i ls ofla ngua ge use. Alth ough th e field of SL I (specific la ngua ge impa ir-ment) is ostensibly concerned with language use, i t seems that

th ere a re no form a l l inguistic cri teria for defining t he field. It isnot surpr isin g t o encoun t er t he level of cont roversy th a t surr oundssuch designa tions as S LI w hen the classifica tions a re ma de in thea bsence of a pr ior i l inguis t ic a b il it i es. S LI , i f i t ex is t s a s a nident ifia ble cond it ion, mu st be defined in t erm s of t he structu re ofla ngu a ge proficiency. The sa m e is tr ue for t he opposit e side of th edimension, namely, the identification of linguistic precocity. Al-th ough fa r less resea rch a tt ention ha s been devoted t o precocious

chi ldren (but see Cra in-Thoreson & Da le, 1992; Da le, Cra in-Thoreson, & Robins on, 1995), such r esea rch suffer s a s w ell froma n imprecision in defining the popula t ion. Cr ea tin g crit eria for aproper definition of language proficiency would contribute enor-mously to th ese pursuit s. These ar e issues w ith significa nt socia la nd educa t iona l impa ct .

Conn ecti ng to th e B r ai n

The collaboration between neuroscience and cognitive psy-chology ha s begun to impa rt irreversible cha nges in th e directionpurs ued by bot h fields. The impetu s for th e resea rch wa s proba bly

B i al ystok 505





The dom a in of la n gua ge processin g quickly beca me a popula r

a rea in w hich t o test t he l imits of these technologies a nd a tt emptto resolve some of th e questions t ha t ha ve wa llow ed in perennia ldisput e. S ome of t his resea rch included invest iga t ions of cogni t iveprocessing carried out during L2 use as well as comparisons ofmonol ingual and bi l ingual populat ions on various tasks. Theproblem is that the s tudies and the interpretat ions of the dataw ere not groun ded in a ny of t he theoret ica l or empirica l prin ciplesthat have been developed in appl ied l inguist ics . I t i s t ime forresearchers who are knowledgeable in SLA to become more in-volved a nd to a ssume a directing role in conducting r esea rch ofthis type. It will be impossible to design the proper study or tocorr ectly unders ta nd th e results w ith out a t horough know ledge ofth e beha vioura l aspects of lea rning a nd using a n L2.

Tw o exa mples of research ha ve used neuroima ging t o a d-dress ques t ions in S LA and L2 use bu t ha ve suffered f rom a n

ina dequa te understa nding of th e f ield . The f i rs t quest ion is thena tu re of represent a tion for t w o la ngua ges; t he second is th e effectof a ge of a cquisit ion on a t ta inment of an L2.

Ard a l, Dona ld, Meuter, Muld rew, a nd Lu ce (1990) used E RPa s a mea ns of deciding wh eth er bilingua ls’ represent a tions of th eirtw o la ngua ges w ere s tored separa tely for ea ch la ngua ge or in acombin ed represent a tion. They presented monolingua l a nd bilin-gual pa rt icipa nt s w ith a sema nt ic processing ta sk in w hich t hey

ha d to detect in congr uit y. The pat t erns of E RP respondin g for t hist a sk a re we l l known , so the ques t ion was to de t e rmine how bilingua ls would compa re to monolingua ls an d w hether t he bil in-gua ls’ tw o lan gua ges w ould elici t different pa tt erns. The experi-menters reasoned that i f b i l inguals were scanning a combinedrepresent a tion for t w o la ngua ges, a s w ould be th e ca se if the tw ola ngua ges w ere stored in a sha red system, th en the t ime neededby th e bilingu a ls to solve th e problem in bot h la ngua ges w ould belonger th a n t ha t needed by compa ra ble monolingua ls. A dela y onlyin the wea ker L2 w ould mea n th a t t he la ngua ges w ere representedsepa ra tely a nd t ha t processing w a s more efficient in the str ongerl angua ge. The re su lt s a ctua l ly revea led a t h i rd pa t t e rn : The

B i al ystok 507



bilingua ls were slow er tha n t he monolingua ls (suggesting a com-

bined r epresent a tion), but t here wa s a significa nt difference be-tw een th e str onger a nd w eaker lan gua ges, w ith fa ster processingbeing observed in the s t ronger language (suggest ing separaterepresent a t ion). These result s sug gest a com plex pa t t ern in w hichla ngua ge represent a tions a re a ut onomous but processing differ-ences distinguish t he bilingua l from t he monolingua l, even in th est ronger la ngua ge. H ow ever, Neville a nd Weber-Fox (1993) a lsoused ERP measures to examine performa nce on a ccepta b il ityjudgments by bi l ingua ls. When t he t a sk w a s t o judge sema nt icacceptability, their results replicated Ardal et al. (1990). For syn-t a ct ic a ccept a bility, how ever, t hey found a different pa t t ern.

A second exa mple is in t he use of ima gin g to shed ligh t on th eq uest ion of a crit ica l period for S L A. Ki m, Relkin, Lee, a nd H irs ch(1997) used fMRI to identify the processing regions involved inusing a n L1 or L2 for bilingua ls w ho lea rn ed the L2 before or a fter

ea rly a dult hood. Their pa rt icipa nt s w ere 12 individua ls, 6 of w homha d lea rn ed t he L2 in childhood a nd 6 a t a la ter a ge. They reportedthat the two languages were represented different ly in Broca’sregion for la t e b i lingua ls bu t w ere represen ted the sam e inWernicke’s a rea . E a rly bilingua ls show ed no differences on a ny ofthe measu res, a nd a ssessmen t s t a ken f rom Wern icke’s a reashowed no differences. Kim et al.’s conclusion, however, buildsfrom th is difference in B roca ’s region a nd is quit e dism issive of t he

res t of t he da ta . Simila r resu lt s w ere repor ted by P era n i e t a l .(1996). For 9 pa r t icipa nt s w h o w ere exposed to En glish a s a s econdla ngua ge aft er 7 yea rs old, P E T sca ns r evealed different cort ica la rea s involved in a listenin g ta sk for En glish a nd It a lia n, th eir L1.C onversely, Klein, Zat orre, Milner, Meyer, a nd E va ns (1995) usedP E T sca ns with pa rt icipa nt s who ha d lea rned the L2 a fter 5 yearsold, a nd found no differences in r epresent a tion on a ny mea sure.They concluded w ith a s t rong sta tement disa vow ing a ny differ-ences in the represent a t ion of la ngua ge a s a funct ion of eit her a geof lea rning or th e tw o la ngua ges th emselves.

These stud ies illust ra t e a situ a t ion in w hich the exclusion ofL2 researchers from the investigation led to a completely avoidable




confusion. The first error in r esea rch of th is ty pe is in defining t he

pa rt icipa ting populat ion. The t erm “bil ingua l” is often used a s agrouping factor w ith virt ua lly no a cknow ledgement of the multi-plici ty of meanings a nd degrees i t ent a i ls . When studies yieldconflicting results usin g bilingua l pa rt icipa nt s, th e first source toinvestiga te for t he conflict is in th e definition of th e pa rt icipa nt s.Applied linguists have spent decades defining the complex rela-t ionships betw een proficiency in t w o la ngua ges a nd th e conn ec-tions betw een ma stery of ea ch la ngua ge a nd tha t of a monolingua lspeaker. The ca tegorica l decision t ha t a n individu a l is bilingua l isbound to lead to confl ic t ing resul ts i f detai ls of their languageproficiency are not provided. Virtually none of these studies ex-pla ins t he na t ure of the pa rt icipan t s’ bilingu a l proficiency. This isespecial ly problematic in the research addressing the cri t icalperiod—it reports a lmost nothing about when the part ic ipantslea rned t he L2, the circumsta nces in w hich they lea rned i t , an d

th e levels of proficiency th ey a chieved. Applied linguist s a re n otsur prised th a t differences in these fa ctors lea d t o differen t profilesof proficiency a nd use.

S econd, resea rchers fa milia r w ith t he complexit y of la ngua gew ould know t he da nger of genera lising from evidence ba sed onlyon one fa cet of language. The fact tha t resu lt s f rom sema nt icprocessing did not replica t e for a syn t a ctic t a sk w ould not surpr isea nyone w ho ha d exper ience in s tudying the mul t id imensiona l

na tu re of la ngua ge proficiency. Resea rchers wh o a re not la ngua gespecia lists but cond uct la ngua ge-rela ted resear ch tend to ma ke asimplifying assum ption a bout t he monolithic na t ure of lan gua ge.I t i s incumbent upon appl ied l inguis t s to in form research inrelated areas to bring the concept ions of language in l ine withcurrent theorising.

The rich litera t ure on ma ny of th ese qu estions is essentia llyignored in s tud ie s o f neu ro imag ing . De te rmin ing the rep re -sent a t ion for tw o la ngua ges, for exam ple, ha s been a perennialquestion in a pplied l inguistics since t he ea rl iest specula tions ofWeinreich (1953/1968). A deta iled lit era t ur e h a s b uilt up on t histopic, a nd linguists know a grea t dea l a bout t he complexit y of t hose

B i al ystok 509



representat ions and their in teract ive nature (e .g . , Krol l & de

Groot, 1997; Schreuder & Weltens, 1993). Moreover, Grosjean(1989) a nd Cook (1997) ha ve a rgued convin cingly th a t bilingu a lsare not s imply a mental combinat ion of two monol inguals butma nifest a complex re-orga niz a t ion of la n gua ge skills. The dichot -omy posed in th e question rega rdin g a single or combin ed systemis obviously too simplist ic. S imilar ly, t he existence of a cri t ica lperiod has been invest igated and researchers have ident i f iedma ny of the factors releva nt to tha t issue as w ell (e.g., B irdsong,in press; H a rley & Wa ng, 1997; Sin gleton & Len gyel, 1995). Thecomplexi t ies should have been predicted. Famil iari ty with theresea rch in a pplied l inguistics w ould h a ve led to more sophisti-cat ed hypot heses an d more complex resea rch designs.

This resea rch is prolifera t ing a s th e techn iques become bet-ter know n a nd t he equipment more widely a vai lable. La ngua ge,rega rdless of one’s th eoretica l orient a t ion, rema ins irrevoca bly a t

the centre of cogni t ion, a nd studies on thinking w ill inevita blyma ke use of lan gua ge, a s eith er the depend ent m ea sure for cogni-t ion or th e mea ns by w hich cognition is directed for t he par tici-pant . Appl ied l inguists have remained not iceably absent fromthese resea rch enterprises in the pa st , but i t i s t ime they w ereincluded a s full colla bora t ors in order to sha pe t he direction of t hisresea rch a nd a pply it to the pressing issues in a pplied linguist ics.

Cognit i on and E du cati on

Linguist s ha ve come to know a grea t dea l a bout languagea cquisit ion, both for L1 a nd subsequent lan guages, but a re s t i l lrelatively ignorant about how the development of knowledge in-tera ct s w ith la ngua ge. Theories of cognit ive development need tobe more inform ed by th eories of la ngua ge a cqu isition an d guidedby st a nda rd s for la ngua ge proficiency. The precedent for lea vingla ngua ge out of the cognition form ula w a s set long ago by Pia get,w ho believed tha t la ngua ge wa s irreleva nt to children’s emergingcogn itiv e st ru ctur es. The view w a s not univer sa lly held even t hen ;Vygots ky (1962, 1978), working a t a pproxima tely t he sa me t ime,




pla ced th e a cquisition of la ngu a ge a t t he centr e of his expla na tion

for th e child’s emergin g cognit ive syst em. Noneth eless, the sepa -ra t ion betw een la ngua ge and th e rest of cognit ion wa s ensconcedin t he field. This isola tion of la ngua ge a cqu isition from stu dies ofcogn it ion a nd it s developmen t ha s impeded th e st udy of both . Thecha llenge now is to bring them togeth er in w a ys tha t integra te thesepara te wisdom of each f ie ld to c rea te more de ta i led under-sta nding of human t hought .

In more recent w ork in cognitive development, la ngua ge isa ga in being pla ced a t th e cent re. Nelson (1996), for exa mple, ha sdeveloped a n interesting a nd unusua l perspective for exploringthe child’s developing conceptual system and i ts interface withla ngua ge. S he bega n w ith th e w ork of D ona ld (1991), w ho proposedfour stages in the phylogenetic progression in the development ofrepresent a t ion. With ea ch sta ge, a new r epresent a tiona l a bility isa dded on t o th e system, but t he older an d more primit ive ones a re

not lost. Thus, phylogenetic development entails not only morepow erful syst ems for represent a tion but a lso more diversity in th epossibilities for represent a t ion. These represent a tiona l sta ges a reepisodic, mimet ic, myt hic, a nd th eoretic. E pisodic represent a t ionis t he a bili ty to encode objects a nd events, including perceptua land other contextual detai ls . The t ransi t ion to mimetic repre-sent a t ion ta kes place with the a dvent of social in t el ligence a ndself-a w a reness. In t his represent a tiona l form , events or r ela tion-

ships can be replicated by means of a re-enactment, as dist inctfrom a litera l imit a t ion. The crit eria for mim esis conver ge in ma nyrespects w ith th e requ irement s for represent ing la ngua ge: “int en-tionali ty, generativity, communicativity, reference, autocueing”(D ona ld, 1991, p. 171). The t hir d st a ge is m yt hic represent a tion,based essen t ia l ly on the narra t ive form: “The myth ic cu l tu reenshrines a sha red vision of both past a nd future t ha t does notsimply reconstruct human experiences but at tempts to explaint hem in m ore encompa ssing t erm s” (Nelson, 1996, p. 69). The fin a lstage of representational evolution leads to the theoretic stage.This last development is at tributed, not to biological change asw ere th e previous a dvan ces, but to cul tura l invent ion. Three

B i al ystok 511



cogn itiv e a chievement s led to the developmen t of t heoret ic repre-

sent a t ion: gra phic invent ion, externa l memory (especia lly w rit t enla ngua ge), an d t heory const ruction. Nelson’s t hesis is tha t th esefour st a ges of representa tion a pply equa lly to ont ogeny, a nd t here-fore describe the progression in children’s conceptual development.

Cent ra l to th i s p rogress ion th rough the s tages of repre-senta tion is the media t ing role of la ngua ge in thought: La ngua gebecomes par t of th ought a s well a s a t ool to th ought . This a na lysisis similar to Vygotsky’s (1962, 1978) argument for the role ofla ngua ge in directin g thought th rough th e use of egocentr ic speechonce langua ge development ha s sufficient ly a dva nced. Nelson(1996) ha s a cknow ledged the pa ra llel w ith Vygot sky’s cla ims. P a rtof her evidence is from resea rch showing how a cha nge in sem a nt icmemory organization in young children is responsible for theira bility t o perform more complex cognit ive ta sks. The a dva nce incognition is a t t ributed to cha nges in la ngua ge orga niza t ion ra th er

than conceptual organizat ion because, she argues, the logical“hiera rchies a re in th e langua ge, not in th e physica l or ma teria lw orld” (p. 250). In deed, she a ppea rs t o push t he a rgu ment furt herin subsequent w ork, sta t ing, “ langua ge is t he key t o cri t ica l a s-pect s of cognit ive cha ng e” (Nelson , 1997, p. 112).

This concept ion of language as inst rumental to thoughtpoints t o int eresting q uestions a bout children being ra ised w ithtw o la ngua ges during the forma t ive year s of cogni t ive develop-

men t . Alt hough Vygot sky (1962) mu sed briefly a bout t he possibleenh a ncing effect of t w o la ngu a ges on children ’s reflect ions, Nelson(1996, 1997) ha s n ot. Nonet heless, her t heory clear ly inv ites q ues-t ions a bout th e differences in development a nd t he effects on th eevolution of these four sta ges of represent a tion th a t w ould obt a inif children w ere developing tw o la ngua ges inst ea d of just one. Ina ddit ion t o th e allegian ce to a Vygotskian posit ion in w hich la n-gua ge guides cognit ive development , she ha s a lso subscribed to aWhorf ian in te rpre ta t ion of language: “Learn ing words i s thuslea rning t o th ink in cultur a l forms . . . to lea rn t he langu a ge mea nslea rn ing t o th ink cult ur a lly” (1996, p. 150). This kin d of int erpre-ta tion ha s clea r implica tions for children lea rning t w o la ngua ges,




even th ough she never explores th em. Yet ma ny childr en, perha ps

the ma jori ty in the w orld , a dva nce through the represent a t iona lsta ges of cognitive development w ith more tha n one la ngua ge, a tlea st to some degree of competence. If la ngua ge ha s t he guidingforce Nelson credits it w ith , th en a pplied linguist s a nd psycholo-gists a l ike need to understa nd how know ledge of more th a n onela ngua ge, or incomplete knowledge of la ngua ge, a ffects t he impor-ta nt development of represent a tiona l syst ems. Aga in, the exper-t ise to exa mine this question is firmly a nd perha ps uniquely wit happlied linguists.

There ar e a lso pra ctica l rea sons t ha t a pplied l inguists needto add ress the rela tion bet w een la ngua ge a nd cognition, especia llyfor educat ional set t ings. The most obvious domain in need ofguidance from insights on the language and cognitive factors inlearning is that of bi l ingual educat ion programmes. There aremany configurations in which instruction is offered to bil ingual

ch i ld ren , in one or bo th languages , and wi th or wi thout theint ent ion of moving int o t he oth er (e.g., Augu st & H a kut a , 1997).La cking is a ra tiona l mea ns of determining t he costs a nd benefitsof ea ch ty pe of progra mm e for children w ith different configura -tions a nd proficiency levels in t he tw o la ngua ges. For exa mple, intr a nsit ional bilingua l educa tion for S pa nish-ba ckground childrenin t he U nited St a tes , i t i s expected th a t chi ldren w ill move int oma instrea m En gl ish progra mmes once their Engl ish skil ls ha ve

a chieved a n a dequa t e level of competence. H owever, th ere a re noobject ive mea ns for determining w ha t a dequa te competence is(partly because there is no adequate definition of proficiency, asdiscussed a bove), a nd th ere is no uneq uivoca l evidence rega rdingwhich language of instruction is more beneficial for children atdifferent stages of learning. It is possible, for example, that chil-dren w ould profit from spending much longer in a n L2 environ-ment w hile they lea rn ed the essent ia ls of history, geogra phy, a ndma thema t i cs, even t hough the i r E ng l ish sk il ls w ere forma l lysuffic ient for them to be t ransferred out of the bi l ingual pro-gra mm e. These ar e empirica l questions, a nd a pplied linguist s a rethe ones most a ble to an sw er t hem, a lrea dy know ing w ha t ha ppens

B i al ystok 513



when they leave such i ssues to o thers to so lve : Penf ie ld and

Robert s (1959) ha d no hesit a t ion in pronouncing upon t he “corr ect ”meth od a nd t iming of foreign lan gua ge inst ruction ba sed only onth eir incomplete resea rch wit h th e bra in a nd persona l an ecdotesabout language classrooms. At least let the experts address theissues!

Fina lly, resea rch is needed int o th e w a ys in w hich know ledgeof languages a nd w ri t ing systems influence the a cquisi t ion ofl i teracy by young bil ingual children. Research in early reading,including t he precurs ors of rea ding a nd t he a cqu isition of skilledrea ding, ha s been a lmost exclusively condu ct ed on m iddle-cla ss,monol ingual chi ldren learning to read Engl ish. Again, th is re-sear ch m isrepresent s t he rea lity for a significa nt port ion of chil-dren in schools. E duca tors n eed resea rch int o the a cquisit ion ofrea ding w hen children ha ve limited proficiency wit h the la ngua geof inst ruct ion and rest r ic ted early experience in learning the

nota tiona l form s of w rit t en la ngua ge. It is not even clear if know l-edge of ot her la ngua ges a nd oth er w rit ing systems is a n adv a nt a geor a l ia bili ty in t rying t o figure out th e principles of rea ding a ndlitera cy. It ma y be prudent , for exa mple, to inst il litera cy skills inth e child’s st rongest la ngua ge irrespect ive of th e la ngua ge of th eschool. These are empirical questions, but their investigationrequ ires a deta iled underst a nd ing of how children a chieve compe-tence in tw o la ngua ges, th e relat ion betw een proficiency in ea ch

of t hose la ngua ges a nd th e int era ction of th is linguist ic know ledgew ith cognit ion in t he lea rn ing process. These ar e cha llenges th a tapplied linguists must face.

Set t ing the Agenda

The t hr ee a rea s of resea rch ident ified h ere, na m ely, definingproficiency, explorin g neur ocognit ive dimen sions of la ngu a ge use,and confronting issues of education and development, are eachcomplex a nd multifa ceted. Fur th ermore, each is current ly inha b-ited by specia lists from va rious fields, oft en incorpora t ing severa ldifferent fields. Although applied l inguists have contributed to




each of these ar eas in some mea sure, th ese questions h a ve never

been t heir prima ry concern , a nd t hey ha ve never been the princi-pa l investiga t ors for th is resea rch. The new direction for a ppliedl inguis t ics must be to move in to t hese a reas a nd become fu l lpa rt icipa nt s in t he pursuit of a nsw ers to these complex interdis-ciplinary questions.

As resea rch becomes more sophist ica t ed a nd kn owledge be-com es more complex, progress is increa sin gly ma de by int erdisci-plina ry tea ms of schola rs working on comm on problems. La ngua geis at th e cent re of some of the most import a nt new r esea rch in th estudy of huma n lear ning a nd cognition, and t he pa rt icula r exper-tise of applied linguists is crucially needed in these enterprises.The cha llenge for a pplied linguistics is t o incorpora t e th e knowl-edge accrued in the past into these directions. For developingw orking models of la n gua ge proficiency, a pplied lingu ist s w ill needto collabora te w ith t heoretica l l inguists, educa tors, a nd la ngua ge

a cq uisition resea rchers. For pursuing st udies of bra in ima ging a sthey rela te t o the a cquisi t ion a nd use of t w o langua ges, a ppl iedlinguists w ill need to collabora t e wit h n euroscient ists a nd cogni-tive psychologists. And for det ermin ing educa tiona l implica t ionsof bilingua lism in lea rning a nd d evelopment, a pplied linguists w illneed to collabora te wit h educa tors, policy ma kers, a nd psychologists.

These are the new challenges for applied linguistics: to be-come pa rt of th e comm un ity of schola rs t a ckling th e most difficult

problems tha t fa ce resea rchers in the a rea s of hum a n intelligence;to learn the most advanced technologies for investigating prob-lems; to become acquain ted wi th th ink ing in o ther f ie lds andal lowing i t to shape the way i ssues a re const rued . These a redifficult ta sks a nd th ey require sett ing a side some preconceivednotions, sa fe ha bits, a nd convent iona l idea s. They a re th e respon-sibilit y of a dult hood.

B i al ystok 515



References

Ard a l, S., D ona ld, M.W., Meut er, R., Muldr ew, S., & Lu ce, M. (1990). B ra inresponses to sema nt ic incongr uit y in bilingua ls. Br ai n and L angu age, 39,187–205.

Augus t, D., & Ha kuta , K . (Eds.). (1997). I m pr ovi ng school i ng for lan guage m i nori ty chi l dr en: A r esear ch agend a. Wa shin gt on, DC : Na t iona l Academ yPress.

Birdsong,D.(Ed.).(in press). N ew per specti ves on th ecr i ti cal per i od hyp othesi s for second l an guage acqui si ti on . H illsda le, NJ : Erlba um.

Cook, V. (1997). The conseq uen ces of bilin gua lism for cogn it ive processin g. InA.M.B. de G root &J .F. Kr oll (E ds.), Tutor i a ls in bi l ingual ism (pp. 279–299).Mahw a h, NJ : Erlbaum.

Cr a in-Thoreson, C., & Da le, P.S. (1992). D o ear ly t a lkers become ea rly rea d-ers? Ling uist ic precocit y, preschool la ngu a ge, an d em ergent litera cy. D e- vel opm ental Psychology, 28, 421–429.

D a le, P.S., Cr a in-Thoreson, C., &Robinson, N. (1995). Ling uist ic precocit y a ndth e development of rea ding: The role of extra linguistic factors. Appl i ed Psych oli n gui sti cs, 16, 173–187.

D ona ld, M. (1991). Or i gins of th e m oder n m i nd : Th r ee stages in th e evol uti on of cul tu r e an d cogni ti on. Ca mbridge, MA: Ha rvard U niversity P ress.

Fenson,L. ,Dale,P.S. ,Reznick,J.S. ,Bates,E. ,Thal,D.J. ,&Pethick,S.J.(1994).Va ria bility in early comm unica tive development . M onograph s of the Soci - ety for Resear ch in Ch i l d Devel opm ent , 59, (5, Seria l No. 242).

G rosjean , F. (1989). Neurolinguist s, bewa re! The bilingua l is not t w o monolin-gua ls in one person. Br ai n and L an guage, 36, 3–15.

H a rley, B ., & Wa ng, W. (1997). The crit ical period h ypoth esis: Where a re w enow? I n A.M.B. de G root & J .F. K roll (Eds.), Tutori als in bil i nguali sm:

Psych oli n gui sti c per specti ves (pp. 19–51). Ma hw a h, NJ : Erlba um.H a rris, R.J ., & Nelson, E.M.M. (1992). B ilingua lism: Not t he exception a ny

more. In R .J. Ha rris (E d.), Cogni ti ve pr ocessi ng in bi l i ngu al s (pp. 3–14).Amst erda m: North-Holla nd.

Kim , K.H .S., Relkin, N.R., Lee, K.-L., & Hirsch, J . (1997). D istin ct cort ica la reas a ssocia ted with na tive a nd second langua ges. N atu r e, 388, 171–174.

Klein, D., Za torre, R.J ., Milner, B., Meyer, E., &E va ns, A.C. (1995). The n eura lsubstrates of bil ingual language processing: Evidence from positronemmsion tomography. In M. Paradis (Ed.), Aspects of bil i ngu al aph asi a

(pp. 23–36). Oxford: P erga mon.Kr oll, J.F., & de G root , A.M.B. (1997). Lexica l a nd conceptua l mem ory in t he

bilingua l: Ma pping form to mea nin g in tw o la ngua ges. In A.M.B. de G root




& J .F. Kr oll (E ds.), Tutor i a ls in b i l i ngual ism (pp. 169–199). Ma hw a h, NJ :

Erlbaum.Lemm on, C .R., & G oggin, J .P. (1989). The mea surem ent of bil ingua lism

and its relationship to cognitive abili ty. App li ed Psycholi ngui sti cs , 10 ,133–155.

Leonard, L.B. (1998). Chi l dr en wi th speci fi c lan guage im pair m ent . Cam-bridge, MA: MIT P ress.

Leopold, W. (1939). Speech devel opment of a bi l i n gual chi l d: A l i ngu i st’s r ecord .Vol um e I . Vocabul ar y gr ow th i n t he fi r st tw o year s. E vanst on, IL: North-western U niversity P ress.

Nelson, K. (1996). L an guage i n cogni ti ve developm ent : Em er gence of th e m edi ated m in d. New York: Ca mbridge U niversity P ress.

Nelson, K. (1997). Cognitive cha nge a s collaborat ive const ruction. In E . Amsel& K.A. Renninger (Eds.), Ch an ge an d devel opment: I ssu es of th eory,m eth od, an d appli cati on (pp. 99–115). Mah wa h, NJ : Er lba um .

Neville, H.J., & Weber-Fox, C.M. (1993). Cerebral subsystems within lan-gua ge. In B . Albow itz, K . Albus, U. Kuh nt , H.-Ch . Nort hdu rft , & P. Wa hle(Eds.), Str uctur al an d fun cti onal or gani zati on of th e neocor tex. B erlin:Springer-Verlag.

P enfield, W. & Robert s, L . (1959). Speech an d brai n m echan i sms. P rinceton,NJ : P rinceton U niversity P ress.

P era ni, D., Deha ene, S., G ra ssi, F., Cohen, L. Ca ppa, S.F., Du poux, E., Fa zio,F., & Mehler, J. (1996). B ra in processing of na t ive a nd foreign la ngu a ges.N eur oReport , 7, 2439–2444.

Pinker (1994). T he l angu age i nsti nct: H ow t he m i nd cr eates l an guage. N ew York: Willia m Morr ow.

Ra mpton, B. (1997). A sociolinguistic perspective on L2 commun ica tionst ra tegies. In G. Ka sper &K . Kellerma n (E ds.), Comm un i cati on str ategies:

Psycholi ngui sti c and soci ol i ngu i sti c per specti ves (pp. 279–303). London:Longman.

Schreuder, R. & Welt ens , B. (Ed s). (1993). Th e bil in gual l exicon. Amsterda m:J ohn Benjamins.

S ing leton, D., & Len gyel, Z. (E ds.). (1995). Th e age factor i n second l an guage acqui si ti on: A cr i ti cal l ook at the cr i ti cal per i od hypothesi s. C levedon, UK :Multilingual Ma tt ers.

S lobin , D.I . (1985). T he cr ossl in guistic stu dy of lan guage acqui si ti on: Vol um e 1 . The data . H illsda le, NJ : Er lbaum .

S lobin , D.I . (1992). T he cr ossl in guistic stu dy of lan guage acqui si ti on: Vol um e 3. H illsda le, NJ : Erlba um.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Though t and l an guage. Ca mbridge, MA: MIT P ress.Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). M i nd i n soci ety: T he d evel opmen t of hi gher psychol ogi -

cal pr ocesses. C a mbridge, MA: Ha rvard U niversity P ress.

B i al ystok 517



Weinreich, U. (1968). L an guages i n cont act. The Hague: Mouton. (First

published a s L i ngu i sti c Ci r cl e of N ew York P ubl icati on N o. 2 , 1953, New York: L.C.N.Y.)


Documents

Coming of Age in Applied Linguistics