Acquisition in Bilingualism

How is language acquired in case of bilingualism. Sometimes a learner is exposed to two languages simultaneously, sometimes one language comes earlier than the other. It is observed that language development happens at different rates in different learners in case of bilingualism. We look at the issue from the perspective of Phonology in this essay.

Issues in Phonology
It is observed that bilingual learners have a problem in picking up accent of the second language. Learning a second language is problematic for a bilingual just as for everyone else. This is because one language already has a dominance in the learner's system. Even if bilingualism is simultaneous, that is, both the languages are given at the same time in early infancy, one of the languages become the dominant language. If this doesn't happen, the child will be confused about the codes of language. This can result in latent language development in children. The gist is, that one language has to be the dominant language.

How does the proficiency of the second language get affected by various factors like time of exposure, age of exposure, etc.?  It is observed that children exposed to a second at the earliest age acquire the language better. The earlier the better. Second factor is exposure. The more the exposure, the better the rate of acquiring the second language. Here, exposure includes both reception and production of language. This is related to brain plasticity. Brain plasticity is explained in two ways. The first is about evolution: as human race advances through centuries in time, the brain becomes more adaptive and more capable of handling more complex data. Thus today's human brain might be a raw material for what might come a century or two later. The second way brain plasticity can be looked at is at a micro level: an individual's brain changes over time, and becomes more adaptive and complex with exposure. In the case of bilingual, this plasticity of brain is lost as age advances. So, if the child is exposed to a second language at a very early age, the child would pick up that language in a better fashion.

Becoming a Bilingual
In order to be called a bilingual, one should be able to handle two languages. This involves various levels of language. The very first is the sound system of a language, because phonemes are the basic building blocks of a language. A bilingual child should be able to distinguish between the sound systems of the two languages.

Experiments have proved that new born babies can differentiate between some pairs of languages that share a common sound system, but have sufficient differences in their rhythmic pattern/structure and prosody. (Prosody is the way you say things / the emotional signature on utterances.) So, of languages have same prosody, children cannot distinguish between languages. This implies that in the very early stages of language development, children develop prosody and rhythmic features. That is, children differentiate between speech sounds and non-speech sounds. At such early age, prosodic bootstrapping happens in children. This is why the age of exposure is said to be very important. Prosody gives children the basic data that is used for the rest of their lives.

After bootstrapping happens, the child starts picking up recursive parameters with which it can generate new structures using the available bits of language. That is, children distinguish between speech sounds and non-speech sounds and then, start differentiating between sounds of different languages. So, already a system is built up as the default system. If infants are exposed to two languages, prosody helps separating and building up two separate systems. This is because, once a child is first exposed to its first language, it acts as a reference point for later language acquisition. Infants exposed to Spanish and Catalan were able to distinguish between these languages at an early age of 4.5 months! 5 month olds can distinguish between two languages which are within the same native rhythmic class. For example, American and Australian English can be distinguished between by babies. But they cannot differentiate between Dutch and German (Dutch is a stress based language, while German is not). All this can be related to the idea that a child learns languages with reference to its first language.

Segmental Information
After picking up the phonemes in the language, children go on to acquire other features of language. Vowels are next in line. How are vowels distinguished by children? There are experiment based evidences that say that 4.5-6 month old babies can distinguish between mother tongue and a second language. Usually bilingual kids get confused regarding two language inputs that they receive. But if there are cues like prosody available for the child, this is overcome by the child. Even here, for different pairs of languages, the mental processes will be different.

In syllable detection tasks, french speakers were found to distinguish /ba/ in the given words because they were familiar to them in their first language. But when they were asked to identify /bal/ it took time/found it difficult because their first language doesn't process syllables that way. This is evidence to different parsing techniques used by different individuals.
Another test using time-compressed language: Anyone can adapt to time-compressed language. But if you remove the features of language that determine boundary features, like the space between words, etc., it becomes difficult. When such language bits were given to learners, it was found that they were able to transfer adaptation to the second languages that were in the same rhythmic group, and they found it difficult to transfer adaptation to languages that were not within their rhythmic group. Between Spanish and Catalan, learners could transfer their adaptation, but between English and French, they couldn't.

Phonemes
6 month old infants can identify native language phonemes. This is a developmental change. First the child learns to distinguish between speech and non-speech sounds, then it moves to identifying phonemes of its native language, and differentiates them from those of other languages.
There is a decline in sensitivity to non-native phonemes as the child grows up. That is, language specific system builds up in early childhood. After a few months of age, children can't distinguish between different phonemes (10-12 months). This is a complex task that the brain does by fixing one system as the dominant system.
Perceptual re-organization: sensitivity to consonants also decline by the end of the first year of a child's life. English speaking children distinguished between English and Zulu clicks (consonants). This did not depend on exposure since these subject did not have exposure to Zulu. So, by the end of first year of its life, a child already knows that its primary language is different from other languages.

EEG done on learners gives mismatch negativity. Mismatch negativity is obtained when a difference is identified by the subject. for example, /b/, /b/, /b/, /b/, /d/ should generate a mismatch negativity since the last phoneme is different from the previous ones. In Learners' EEG, mismatch graph amplitude increased showing discrimination of sounds between two languages when exposed.

Monolingual children have to handle only one language data. In bilingualism, children have double task. All the processes discussed above happen doubly for a bilingual child. It has to identify and distinguish between two sets of phonemes simultaneously. As children grow, they can't distinguish between all the sounds from other languages if they are similar. Bilinguals distinguish between similar sounds a much later stage than monolinguals (probably because they have to handle much more data).

Notes from : Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches Edited by Judith F Kroll and Annette MB De Groot 

ആഴമുള്ളവ

ഹൃദയത്തിലാഴത്തില്‍ വരഞ്ഞുവീണ പാടുകളല്ലേ കാലത്തിനും ദൂരത്തിനും മുമ്പിലോടുന്നത്? 

അങ്ങനല്ലേ ജീവിതം പുതിയത് മാത്രമായിത്തീരുന്നത്? 

കടന്നുപോക്കല്ലേ ജീവിതം? 

ഈ നിമിഷമല്ലേ ജീവിതം?

ദൂരങ്ങളില്‍

ദൂരങ്ങളില്‍,
കവിത വിരിയുമൊരു ഹൃദയം
സമയം തുഴഞ്ഞിങ്ങുയാത്രചെയ്യുന്നു.

ചക്രവാളച്ചുവപ്പിനുമപ്പുറം
തണുത്ത മേഘക്കപ്പുകളിലവള്‍
വിരഹം മൊത്തുന്നുണ്ടാവുമിപ്പോള്‍.

പുസ്തകമണങ്ങളില്‍പ്പെട്ടു
ദൂരമറിയാതെ ഞാനോ,
ഇത്തിരിവട്ടത്തില്‍
കാത്തിരിപ്പിന്‍റെ കൈയിലാകാശം നോക്കുന്നു.

പ്രണയം വാർന്നു വീഴുന്ന ദേഹവും നോക്കി
രണ്ടുപേരിങ്ങനെ...
ദൂരങ്ങളില്‍...

Interaction Analysis

Interaction approach looks at input, production of language or output and feedback of interaction as a means of explaining learning. According to Gass and Selinker (2008, 317) interaction research’s starting point is the assumption that language learning is stimulated by communicative pressure and it examines the relationship between communication and acquisition and the mechanisms that mediate between them. In short interaction studies look at communication and acquisition using interactions between speakers of a language.

Components of interaction include negotiation, recasts and feedback. Negotiation of meaning is dealt with in this essay.

When the flow of conversation is disturbed, participants question particular utterances and request help with the conversation. This is a kind of negotiation of meaning in order to get equal participation in the conversation, to be part of the conversation from which the speaker slipped due to lack of understanding (or proficiency factors). Negotiation of meaning happens when parties in a conversation interrupt its flow to understand what the conversation is about. This happens frequently with non-native speakers according to Gass and Selinker (318). In my experience, this happens also with native speakers when internal or external factors affect the speaker or the listener. For example, in a mentally preoccupied situation, the listener may not interpret the speaker in the right manner. This necessitates clarification from the speaker for the smooth conduct of the conversation. Sometimes, especially with NNS, this happens too often that most of the conversation time is occupied by interruption as in 10.10.

Such lack of understanding is a block to exchange of ideas and opinions. So from the passage, we understand that not only NSs, but also NNSs change their conversation structure to negotiate meaning. Long notices NNS conversations to have forms that are not seen in NS conversations. Examples are confirmation checks like ‘am I right?’, comprehension checks like ‘did you understand?’ and clarification requests like ‘eh?, huh?, what, etc.’.

Different kinds of questions are asked by NSs and NSSs of English. If a NS and a NNS are in conversation, then it is usually the NNS who expresses non-understanding. The NS then clarifies using different techniques to reduce complexity of the utterance so that the NNS can understand. These tactics convey much information to the NNS. Some of these tactics are, repeating the question after giving a pointer to the answer, giving choices for the listener to choose from, giving alternatives, rephrasing, etc.

But there are subtler differences observed in conversation. In case of NNS, there is a willingness to change topics abruptly when understanding is not reached. This can also happen as a result of unfruitful and long attempts to negotiate meaning. I have similar experiences with a Thai student of mine. We have often abandoned topic because neither of us could make sense of each other.

Here, modifications are for understanding of the NNS. Thus NNS is assisted in understanding what is spoken and to produce speech, so that there is less pressure on her. Another perspective on this is that this exercise could be for showing solidarity. There could be no aspect of ‘helping in understanding’ at all.

But here we need to make a distinction between comprehension and acquisition. Both are not equal. Comprehension is a single event, while acquisition is a permanent state in terms of learning.

The comparison of Conversational Analysis of two theorists Mori and Kasper with an Interactionist analysis of a conversation shows clear differences in approach. Input analysis is surface focused and is not looking for motivation of NS speech. That is, interactionist perspective is not concerned about the detailed aspects of a conversation that they don’t count as learning. For them, activities are not central to their approach. Therefore, increased accomplishment within an activity is not counted as or relevant as learning.

Reference

Gass, Susan M. andn Selinker, Larry. Second Language Acquisition. Routledge. London. 2008.

ശരീരമില്ലായ്മയുടെ പ്രണയം

അതല്ലേ പ്രണയം?
സ്പര്‍ശവും ചര്‍മ്മഗന്ധവും ഉന്മാദവും
നിഴലല്ലേ, നിറമല്ലേ, മാഞ്ഞുപോകും.
നിന്‍റെ പ്രണയം നിന്നോളം മാത്രം.

പുകമഞ്ഞിനപ്പുറമവളുണ്ടെന്നതും
പുസ്തകമണത്തിലോര്‍മ്മ പൂക്കുന്നതും
ഒരുമാത്ര മിന്നല്‍പ്പിണരിലവളുണരുന്നതും
മാത്രമല്ലേ പ്രണയം?

ദൂരകാലങ്ങളില്ലാതെ,
കരിയിലയനക്കങ്ങളില്‍
പരസ്പരം കാണ്മതല്ലേ പ്രണയം?
ശരീരമില്ലായ്മയിലല്ലേ പ്രണയം?

Input in Language Acquisition

Language learning is not as simple as filling some content into existing structures so that all on a sudden you begin speaking- like installing an operating system onto a new computer. You are not ready to go in 30 minutes. To see how complex a process is language acquisition, there are many frameworks we can adapt. Here, we will begin by looking at language input and its importance in acquisition of a language.

Language Input
Former conceptualizations of second language learning was based on behaviourist models where input in terms of exposure and imitation was the most important aspect in learning a language. Research based on input faded away as behaviourism was kept aside by theoreticians, and it became old fashioned. New interest was in the way of internal mechanisms of the learner. What the learner brings to learning situation began to be seen as very important. the focus is here on innateness and innate system within the learner. The view here is that the learner is the creator of language. Input is not important.

In 1967, Corder made an important distinction between input and intake. Input is what is available to the learner in terms of input, and intake is what is actually internalized, or acquired. Input is that language to which the learner is exposed. Any babble can be input. But that does no good to the learner. Intake is available for the learner to use at all times, and is part of the system of the learner.

Now, what is the nature of input to a language learner? Ferguson says that similar to the language mothers/elders use for their kids (motherese), there is something called 'foreigner talk'. Foreigner talk is simplified talk that Native Speaker (NS) use for the consumption of Non Native Speaker (NNS) or language deficient individuals. Ferguson set out to understand the similarity of motherese and foreigner talk.

There are various ways of making foreigner talk. It could be slow speech rate, loud speech, long pause, simple vocabulary, repetition, elaboration, restraining from use of slang, etc. Speech is adjusted by NS as a function of the learner proficiency. NSs make modifications in speech when they perceive that NNSs don't comprehend.

The techniques used are not only phonological and syntactical, but also like restatement, repetition, elaboration, giving more information, fuller use of noun or object or other classes or phrases, implicit grammatical information being made explicit, etc.

NSs assess and reassess NNS's linguistic ability during conversational interaction. So, during conversation, NS's speech pattern changes. This adjustment facilitates comprehension.

What are the functions of foreigner talk in terms of language learning? One, NNS's understanding is facilitated. Foreigner wants to be understood. Comprehensibility is the important criterion in a conversation. Foreigner talk is produced because comprehensible input is to be produced if comprehension has to occur (Like motherese creates comprehensible input for the baby, foreigner talk produces comprehensible input for the L2 learner). But not all foreigner talk is created equal. Parker and Chaudron says that discourse elaboration or modification of conversational structure aids comprehension better than simplification at linguistic level i.e., foreigner talk.

Input Hypothesis-Krashen
Krashen's Monitor model, where what you learn acts as your monitor to check your language use, and input hypothesis should be discussed in this context. Input hypothesis came as an explanation to Natural Order hypothesis. He argued that there is a natural order in which languages are learned. If there is an order, how does learner move from one point to another? The answer is Input hypothesis. Second languages are acquired by receiving comprehensible input.

For comprehensible input to work, the input should be one bit ahead of the current state of the learner's grammatical knowledge. If the learner's current state is 'i', comprehensible input should be 'i+1'. Input should not be very high or very low compared to the current state. It won't serve the purpose then. This condition has to be satisfied for acquisition to happen. Krashen assumed the availability of the Language Acquisition Device for first and second language acquisition. Comprehensible input activates this structure.

Input hypothesis applies to all acquisition, in class room also according to Krashen. He notes that speaking is the result of acquisition, not the cause of it. Speech emerges as a result of comprehensible input. What you acquire becomes part of your language, which is used in speech. If input is understood, necessary grammatical structures are automatically provided. A teacher need not deliberately teach grammar, the next step in the natural order. It happens automatically if comprehensible input is there. That is, no explicit language teaching is required. (This view led to the development of Communicative Language Teaching of CLT). The teacher's role is limited to ensuring the availability of comprehensible input.

The difficulties of this theory are the following. Krashen did not talk about level of the learner (i, i+1, etc.). He did not specify what is 'specific quantity' of appropriate input. He also did not consider how extra-linguistic information helps in actual acquisition or internalization of a language if understanding is defined at the level of meaning. We may understand what is spoken, but does that necessarily mean the grasp of grammatical rules that underlie the speech? How does exposure to language translate into internalization of language rules? These questions are not answered by Krashen's account.

Now, what is the relevance of Krashen's Monitor model and Input hypothesis to foreigner talk as language input in second language learning? Krashen's theory speaks about comprehensible input. The emphasis is on 'comprehension'. If input is not comprehensible, it is not relevant. That is why he speaks of i, i+1, etc. Likewise foreigner talk is a tactic by which comprehensible input is generated for the listener who is linguistically not at the level of the speaker. By keeping comprehensibility as the criterion, NS adjusts her speech in order to create comprehensibility. This is the relevance of input hypothesis in relation to foreigner talk.

Notes prepared from: Gass, Susan M. and Selinker, Larry. Second Language Acquisition. Routledge. London. 2008.

ഇരുട്ടിന്‍റെ ബലിച്ചോറ്

മകരമഞ്ഞു മായുമ്പോഴെങ്കിലും 

നീ അരികിലുണ്ടാവുമെന്ന്‍...

ഇന്നലെ,

നിലാവിന്‍റെ ചൂടില്‍ ഓര്‍മ്മകള്‍ കത്തിയമര്‍ന്നപ്പോള്‍

ഇനിയെന്നുകാണുമെന്ന്...

കനലടര്‍ന്ന കൊള്ളിയില്‍ പുകയായി ഞാന്‍മാത്രം ബാക്കിയായി.

ദൂരെ കരിപുരണ്ട വിരഹം ആര്‍ത്തിയോടെ കാത്തിരിക്കുന്നു.

ഇരുട്ടിന്‍റെ ബലിച്ചോറിന്നായി...