Module 8

Part 1
 New trends

 So far we have seen bilingualism in its many different avatars, starting from social,
gradually moving to cognitive and neural aspects

 like any academic discipline, its an ever changing, ever evolving field.

 So, when we talk about new trends, we mean what is new today.

 And what is new today is also not a sudden change, but rather a point on the
continuum, an evolutionary stage of the same.

 Where we stand today also points toward the near future of this discipline.
 Current trends in bilingualism
research
 New developments within bilingualism research:
 new questions,
 methods, populations,
 new ways to look at the effect and so on.

 Impact on sister domains:

 what happens to first language
 Can the findings from bilingualism be translated into third or more languages
 Trends in multilingualism studies
 New models
 There are four issues in the wider domain of bilingualism research, namely:

1. The issue of how bilingualism is measured. The total number of languages spoken
is not predictive of positive cognitive effects, rather the specifics of the daily
language use of the subjects, in addition to other factors such as age, income, and
education. Rather than a group-based comparison (Mono vs. Bilinguals),
researchers are now trying to measure bilingualism along a series of continua,
along which individuals can be arranged.

2. Age of participants- where in the lifespan a particular speaker is positioned. While

age of has long since been acknowledged as important one’s current age matters
too. This could be because, longer an individual lives, the more nuanced their
language attitudes are likely to be. Sociocultural factors change over time,
impacting language use.
3. Which tasks should be used to understanding the impacts
of bilingualism/multilingualism on cognition. Ecologically-valid tasks that also
have relevance to our daily lives, are needed to assess effects of bilingualism on
the components of executive function.

4. Analyses linking language usage measures to experimental task performance

require a range of different analytical tools. As the shift from group-based
comparison to individual differences emerges, there is a need for homogeneity on
how bilingualism is defined, measured, and reported.

(Backer & Bortfeld, 2021)

 Questioning the methods

 Not only do we have newer ways to look at the research questions, newer variables
to count for, but even the ‘Questionnaires’ used to assess the language background
of the participants are undergoing scrutiny.

 Multiple authors have started to discuss the variability of questionnaires used for
documenting bilingualism.

 According to them, questionnaires also contribute to the lack of replicability in

bilingualism studies across groups.

 In a recent paper, the authors have pointed out that in general the main overarching
constructs are : language exposure and use, activities, and current language skills.
 However, they also point out that there is high variability as to what extent these
questions are operationalized across different questionnaires currently in use.

 The crucial point here is that if the questionnaires in use are not uniform, the resultant
participants’ data also cannot be compared across studies.

 Hence, there is a need for greater transparency in how we document bilingualism and
for more comparable measures.

(Draško Kašćelan et al 2021; Surrian and Luk 2017; Li et al. 2006)

Understanding Bilingualism research as a Discovery science

 Researchers have proposed a novel way to look at the ever unfolding knowledge
on bilingualism as a phenomenon.

 The domain is still capable to throwing surprises and hence it is argued that a
strict set of methods, sample size need not be prescribed.

 Rather researchers need to be allowed to find novel ways , like:

 sensitive tasks geared to testing specific processes,
 rich characterization to identify phenotypic variation,
 non-binary questions that enable the exploration of interactions
 Thus, in order to create a more viable research environment, the researchers
advocate for newer methods, out of the box thinking

 While many of the replication failures have been as a matter of data interpretation,
choice of participants, confounding variables etc.

 There is a possibility that sticking to a prescriptive set of methods is restricting our

full understanding of bilingualism, both from psychological and neuroscience
perspective.

(Christian A. Navarro-Torresa, Anne L. Beatty-Martínezb, Judith F. Krollc , David W. Green 2021)

 Taking a closer look at cognitive
function
 One of the newer approaches to account for the variance in outcome of
bilinguals’ cognitive control has tried to find nuances within the mechanism
itself.
 the source of the inconsistency is not in the evidence but rather in the
framework that has typically been used to motivate the research and
interpret the results
 In this regard, the componential view of EF with its central role for inhibition
has been criticized.
 Rather attentional control has been proposed as a better alternative to
understand the group difference between monolinguals and bilinguals.
 It has been suggested that group differences will emerge only when the attentional
demands of a task exceed the control abilities of one of the groups, regardless of the
EF components involved.

 bilingual environment leads to adaptation of the attention system to cope with its
specialized demands.

 this adaptation confers a domain-general benefit to attentional control.

 the resulting benefit enhances aspects of cognitive performance across the lifespan

 In essence, attention control, not inhibition is the key factor within EF that needs more
careful look.

(Bialystok and Craik 2022)

 Neural consequences for cortical and
sub-cortical regions
 Using an additional language is shown to have an impact on the structure and
function of the brain, which include regions that are involved in cognitive control
and the connections between them.
 This creates two active representations that then compete for selection at several
levels of language processing and production.
 it places increased demands on both the linguistic and nonverbal executive
control systems. The brain adapts both functionally and structurally to optimally
handle these demands.
 Effects of bilingualism are shown as differences in cortical and subcortical grey
matter volume, sub-cortical shape differences, differences in diffusivity patterns
e.g., fractional anisotropy (FA), and more.
 However these effects, widely reported in bilingualism literature, may not be
uniform.

 Li et al. suggested that the effects of bilingualism on the brain might rely on
three main dependent factors:
i. The timing of the acquisition of the second language (L2) with respect to
the acquisition of the first language (L1), the L1–L2 interactions;
ii. The nature of L2 input, in terms of the intensity of something as complex as
L2 learning; and
iii. The extent of L2 input, in terms of the amount of experiences and
opportunities for using an L2, which might in-crease L2 proficiency and also
cause commensurate and positively correlated neuroanatomical
adaptations.
 Biliteracy
 A biliterate is someone who is considered proficient in communicating in two
languages based on their literacy skills, such as, reading and writing.

 Biliteracy can be viewed as an advanced state of bilingualism, since a biliterate

can not only speak two languages well but can also read and write in them.
(Niyekawa, 1983).

 Becoming biliterate requires students to develop skill in engaging with and

making sense of texts in two languages that vary both orally as well as in their
writing systems. Developing word-level and text-level skills in two languages
involves a common set of cognitive processes that may transfer across
languages.
 One common effect of biliteracy is the cross-linguistic transfer, which is the
transfer of literacy skills, like reading or writing strategies, between the
languages of a biliterate person.

 Studies on the effects of biliteracy have largely examined crosslinguistic

transfer in terms of reading, as well as for writing, but to a much lesser
degree than reading.

 Different types and conditions of skill-transfers in reading and writing have

been reported in these skill-transfer studies, with some reported also on
actual advantages for biliterates and bilinguals over monolinguals on some
aspects of reading
Linguistic Interdependence Principle [Cummins, 1991]
 Literacy transfer may occur in two conditions.
1. Firstly, a person needs to have gained a high level of literacy in the dominant language or
L1. This would serve as a foundation for skill transfer between languages, while also
encouraging mastering of literacy in the weaker language. Transfer does not occur when
both languages are underdeveloped.

2. Secondly, transfer also largely depends on language distance, which is known as the
similarity between the orthography (i.e., writing systems) and language structure (i.e.,
grammar) of two languages. Two languages written in an alphabetic system (e.g., English
and Spanish) are generally considered more amenable to skill transfer than would an
alphabetic and ideographic language.
 Bilingual education

 Bilingual education is when any education programme is taught or learnt in

two or more languages, to teach non-language-related academic subject
matters.
 Often in such scenarios where the language of instruction and the language of
the home or community do not match.
 Since the end of the 20th century, there has been a wider development of this
educational model.
 There are several bilingual education models, such as:
1. Enrichment Bilingual Education
2. Transitional Bilingual Education
3. Two-Way Immersion (TWI) or Two-Way Bilingual programmes
4. Heritage Bilingual Education, etc.
1. Enrichment Bilingual Education
 This model is found most commonly in the French immersion programmes in
Canada, as well as in European International Schools. Other examples include
Spain with the Basque or Catalan languages, the UK with Welsh, or the USA
with Spanish
 The aim of such programmes is to promote biliteracy through the use of a
second (minority) language (L2) as a medium of education among learners
from the majority language group.
 The purpose is to enable speakers of minority languages to develop skills in the
majority language while also maintaining their home language
2. Transitional Bilingual Education
 In this model, the focus is on the use of the home minority language (L1) in
earlier educational settings, with the aim of shifting to the dominant
language in subsequent educational stages to cope with mainstream
education.
 This model has been common in US bilingual programmes for Spanish
native speakers (or Latinos) around the late 20th century.

3. Two-Way Immersion (TWI) or Two-Way Bilingual programmes

 According to this model, the students of the majority language, (e.g., native
English speakers) and students speaking the minority language (e.g., native
speakers of maybe Spanish) are integrated and provided with content
instruction and language development in both languages.
 This model got popular in the US from the mid-1980s onwards due to the
growing popularity of foreign language learning among English speakers.
 Other models such as Heritage Bilingual Education, have been associated with
education through indigenous languages, e.g., aboriginal languages in Australia,
among others.

 Various educational approaches have resulted in a range of bilingual educational

models such as:
 Content-Based Instruction (CBI)
 Language Across the Curriculum (LAC)
 Immersion programmes (IP)
 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
 English-Medium Instruction (EMI)
 Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education (ICLHE)
 English-Medium Teaching (EMT)
 More recently, English-Medium Education in Multilingual University Settings (EMEMUS)

(See also: Sánchez-Pérez & Manzano-Agugliaro (2021)

 Heritage language speakers

 Heritage languages (Valdés, 2000) are the minority languages in a society

and are typically learned at home during childhood.
 The field of heritage language (HL) acquisition has emerged over the past
two decades while investigating bilingual language scenarios.
 Heritage speakers are typically not trained, literate readers of their Heritage
Language since for many heritage speakers the language is imparted and
used almost exclusively orally.
 Even in scenarios where the HL and the majority language share the same
script and overlap in phoneme-to-grapheme correspondence, chances are,
heritage speakers maybe be slower in reading the HL.
 Heritage Speakers experience, on a continuum, reduced quantities of input
as well as contexts in which they are likely to hear/use the HL. This may
affect knowledge of particular vocabularies and discourse conventions
pertaining to distinct registers.
(See also: Bayram et al.,2020)
 Going beyond the typical population

 Bilingualism and its impact on typical population has been studied and some amount
of advantage is also reported, especially in case of children.

 Now, researchers are also looking at the effect of bilingualism on atypical children

 Some such domains include stuttering, Autism Spectrum disorder, language disorders,
etc.
 Stuttering:

 bilingualism has been found to be correlated to neurology of stuttering. Increased

grey matter in Broca’s area in bilinguals can decrease the effect of stutter.

 bilingualism affects individuals who stutter both positively and negatively. Bilingualism
can positively affect the neurology, phonological awareness and executive functioning
of individuals who stutter based on their culture, languages they are switching
between, and the language spoken.

 However, bilingualism can also have a negative effect on individuals who stutter, for
bilingualism can cause an individual to experience cognitive overload and cause
individuals to have difficulties switching languages.

(Anthony 2020)
ASD
 Children with ASD exhibit significant deficiency in terms of Executive Functions as
compared with typical children.
 On the other hand, bilingualism is found to enhance the same function in normal
population.
 Keeping this in mind, researchers are exploring if bilingualism can come to the recue
to ASD children.

 It has been reported that bilingual advantage among school age children with ASD in
some lab based tasks, including card sorting task.

(Aparna Nadig & Maria Gonzalez Barrero 2019)

Freeman & Schroeder (2022)
 Talks about issues obstructing successful identification and diagnosis
of developmental language disorders in bilingual children.
 First, lack of norm-referenced tests for bilingual children.
 Second, absence of a common framework of assessment and guidelines
among the various associations related to disabilities, for instance the
American Speech-Language Hearing Association(ASHA), Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), etc.
 Third, speech language pathologists have difficulty in identifying the language
disorders in the first place when they do not have the proper training in place
or are not familiar with the language or culture of the child being assessed.
This may often lead them to take help from interpreters to assist in assessment
which is often a hindrance than help.
 Some suggestions include alternate measures for assessment of bilingual
children like:
 Dynamic assessment
 Non-word repetition
 Language Sampling
 Parent report, etc.

 Some principles of assessing bilingual children include:

 Bilingual and non-bilingual children should not be assessed in the same manner.
 No two bilingual children are the same.
 Use both, norm-referenced and alternate measures for assessment
 Assess them in both languages whenever possible.
 Determine if it is a language disorder or language difference.
 Collaboration should be among the Speech Language Pathologists, families,
teachers, interpreters, other professionals involved, etc.
 A new model to the rescue

 The research discussed show a lot of variation in result, pointing out the necessity
to create an overarching model that takes care of these divergent results in
language processing and language use.

 A number of researchers have argued for more interaction among different

disciplines that look at different aspects of bilingualism, like contact linguistics,
heritage linguistics, cross-linguistic influence studies, translation, sociolinguistic
typology and so on.
 It has also been pointed out that bilingualism is a fluid phenomenon, that can
change across life-span. Bilingualism in action shows that bilingual linguistic
behaviour can change from one moment to another as well as go though long term
changes.

(Nicoladis & Montanari 2016; Jarvis & Pavlenko 2010; Muysken 2013)
 CASP

 Complex Adaptive System Principles was proposed by Filipovic and Hawkins (2018).
 This is a new model for bilingual language processing.
 This model aims to account for the diverse, and sometimes conflicting, outcomes as
evidenced under different conditions.
 And provide explanatory power for the same.
As Filipovic explains:

 The biggest challenge for any overall model of bilingualism is that many factors are in
play at the same time, including age of acquisition, proficiency, language dominance,
frequency of use, language mode, and power status, to name but a few.

 It is difficult to capture their respective roles and their different strengths in different
communicative situations within a single model in a way that is compatible with the
highly variable bilingual speaker profiles that have been observed.
 General principles of the model
(A) Minimize learning effort (MiL)

 Like in any domain bilinguals like to minimize the learning

efforts, in terms of lexical or grammatical properties of the
language.

 Effort is minimized when

 properties of L1 and L2 are similar
 Both language’s properties are high frequency in terms of input, thus
increasing exposure
 Structural and semantic properties of the language are simple and
not complex
(B) Minimize processing effort (MiP)
 Bilinguals prefer to minimize efforts at processing.

 Complex grammatical properties are not only harder to learn but harder to
access as well.

 As a result, ‘maximize structurally and semantically simpler properties’ is

used.

 Hence simpler properties are more readily learned and used.

 Maximize Frequently Occurring Properties drives the acquisition and use of

more frequent forms in both languages more than less frequent ones .
(C) Maximize Expressive Power (MaE)

 This principle stands in partial opposition to principles (A) and (B), since achieving
full expressive power requires sometimes more and sometimes less processing
effort, e.g. more complex as well simpler expressions, and less frequent ones,
contra (B). Complex and less frequent items are also harder to learn, contra (A).
(D) Maximize Efficiency in Communication (MaC)

 a. Communication is efficient when the message intended by S is delivered to H in

rapid time and with minimal processing effort;

 b. Acts of communication between S and H are generally optimally efficient; those

that are not occur in proportion to their degree of efficiency.

 With respect to bilingualism, an efficiency approach will describe not only its role in
communication, as just illustrated, but also, and primarily, the relationship between
different linguistic systems in the bilingual mind and their observable outputs in
communication. It is our contention that bilinguals strive for an efficient resolution of
two grammars in one mind.
(E) Maximize Common Ground (MCG)
 Bilingual learners and speakers maximize common grammatical and lexical representations
and their associated processing mechanisms in two languages
 (i) if L1a and L1b share a given construction, grammatical rule or word meaning, and
associated processing mechanisms, then these shared entities will be used more frequently in
both languages. (These entities may be the preferred or majority pattern in one language and
a minority or dispreferred in the other, but they will still be the pattern of choice in the
bilingual’s use of both languages.)
 (ii) if L1a and L1b do not share a given construction, grammatical rule or word meaning, and
associated processing mechanisms, then common ground will be created by introducing
entities from one language into the other. New shared entities will be introduced wherever
possible within the constraints of current grammatical and usage conventions for the relevant
language
 (iii) any violations of a grammatical or usage convention in L1a or L1b that occur when
maximizing common ground will be in proportion to the environmental and psycholinguistic
factors
 How does this work?
 “The most efficient way for bilinguals to deal with two linguistic systems at the same
time is to use as many of their shared resources as possible.”

 This is done as bilinguals need to alleviate the cognitive load of simultaneously

processing two languages.

 If structures and meanings are shared they can become connected in bilingual
minds, more reinforced and more readily accessible in both languages than
language-specific alternatives.

 If a specific form exists only in the one language but not the other, the most
straightforward way to maximize common ground might seem to be by directly
importing forms from one language into another
 Cognitive approach for language
teaching and learning

 In second/foreign language (L2) learning, the instruction methods have

always been a matter of discussions.

 Some common questions :

 What aspect of language to be taught?
 What should be the approach for pedagogy?
 Is grammar teaching needed in the classroom? What kind and how much?
 How is it taught and what do language instructors need to know?
 A large literature review for applied linguistics research by Antón (2011:92)
pointed out that traditional approaches to language (grammar) instruction do not
interact well with the communicative needs.

 balance between the formal study of a linguistic system and the active learning
processes necessary for meaningful interaction with the target language in real-life
contexts beyond the classroom.

 So, here comes the idea of using cognitive linguistics theories for language
pedagogy.
 This idea was already proposed at the beginning of the 21st century by Dirven,
Niemeier and Pütz (2001: xiv)

 They advocated for Cognitive Linguistics-inspired learning materials for all levels
of instruction: from absolute beginners to the most advanced learners.

 In CL , grammar pairs meaning and form as one teachable unit.

 It aims to give learners the option to build language based on their own
communicative intent, and not on what the textbook instructions describe the
linguistic system to be. (García, 2016)
 When cognitive approach is used for the explicit teaching of language grammar, it
provide learners with operative principles in the target language.
 CL offers some conceptual tools for effective language pedagogy such as :
 embodiment of language,
 semantic networks,
 construal,
 prototypes,
 Perspective and visuals,
 metaphor.

 It enables them to control their performance without the sheer memorization of random
lists of notions and functions.
 It does the detailed semantic analysis of all grammatical elements such as
English progressive - be, -ing, etc.

 It also includes the discourse & other pragmatic factors in the meaning of
grammatical elements.

 The best part of CL in language pedagogy is that it frequently uses pictorial

illustration of meaning. Images and schemas are used as a foundation to
foster the understanding and processing of new grammar.
 First language attrition

 Language attrition in the process of losing one’s native or first language,

often considered as the opposite of language acquisition.
 Generally caused by isolation from the first language of the speakers or by
the acquisition and use of a second language, which can interfere with the
correct production and comprehension of the first, or both.
 Even though such interference from a second language is experienced
somewhat by all bilinguals, it is most evident among speakers for whom a
language other than their first has started to play an important, if not
dominant, role in everyday life.
 It is common among immigrants that travel to countries where languages
foreign to them are used.
 Third language acquisition

 After research on bilingualism gained momentum, a natural next step was to look
at the issue of third or more languages.

 L3 acquisition has traditionally been categorized as part of second language

acquisition. However, later researchers begin to view L3 acquisition as a separate
and unique field of research (Leung, 2007).

 Cenoz (2003)defined third language as “the acquisition of a non-native language

by learners who have previously acquired/are acquiring two languages.”

 Other terms in the literature include “multiple language acquisition”. “multilingual

acquisition”, and “third or additional language acquisition"
 Many other definitions are also available.

 Definitional issues apart, trilingualism is now a growing domain of research,

enriched by multiple subfields across cultural and linguistic boundaries and
providing theoretical and empirical data.

 Hoffmann (2001) differentiates five kinds of trilinguals based on the conditions

and the setting in which they acquire their trilingualism:
 (1) Children raised with two different home languages and the community language.
 (2) Children raised in a bilingual community who also speak a different home
language.
 (3) Bilingual learners who learn a third language at school.
 (4) Bilinguals who acquire a third language due to immigration purposes.
 (5) Individuals in a trilingual society.
 Main themes within this field have changed over time.

 Major focus till 2015 seem to be on the sociolinguistic and educational aspects.

 Also taken into account were ‘transfer’, with substantial attention devoted to morpho-
syntax.

 L3 phonology began gaining attention after 2015.

 Overall, research on the cognitive and psycholinguistic aspects of trilingualism appears

still very nascent.

(Liu, 2022; Wunder, 2011; Hoffmann, 2001)

 Multilingualism
 Rapid growth of transnational interactions has seen an equivalent growth in
multilingualism.

 Multilingualism is a living, breathing, and ever-evolving phenomenon.

 Last two decades of bilingualism and multilingualism studies have taken a definite
turn towards cognitive and psychological reality of the phenomenon.

 Despite the obvious role played by socioecological forces in shaping human

experience of multilingualism.

 theoretical and empirical efforts to characterize psycholinguistic processes in adults

routinely ignore a social view of language, notwithstanding frequent allusions to
“contextual factors”.
 Scholars have given a clarion call to researchers from across disciplinary
boundaries to unite under the broad umbrella of multilingualism.

 and take into account:

 limitless variety of historical forces leading to multilingualism in communities around the

globe.
 accomplish mutual (e.g., commerce) or one-sided (e.g., colonization) social goals.

 language symbols that evolve over time and are inherently culture-bound.

 sociocultural forces acting upon individual people when they choose or are compelled,
utterance by utterance, to speak one or another language in daily life.

(Titone & Tiv 2021; Andresen & Carter, 2016; Lin & Lei 2020)
 Thus,

 Incorporating neurocognitive expertise with sociolinguistic and sociocultural theories.

 Socially situated ‘systems framework’ to combine with neurocognitive inquiries

 Also,

 Translanguaging, heteroglossic language ideologies etc are also emerging trends.

 Multilingualism in the field of education

 Multilingualism poses a challenge as well as an opportunity for all

education systems
 The need of the hour is to

 meet the challenges and

 draw on the opportunities of linguistically diverse societies.

 Let us look at some examples of language teaching in the following

European countries
1. Germany

 Has the third largest number of international migrants in the world.

 Migrant languages typically investigated in educational domains in Germany

are Turkish, Russian, Polish and Portuguese.

 A lot of the research focus, thus, stems from inequality in educational

achievement between students with and without a migrant background, for which
language has been considered as an influencing factor.

 Thus, research and educational practice have focused on German as the language of
schooling for second-language learners.
2. Italy
 In Italy, migrant heritage languages are Romanian, Arabic and Spanish.
 Here, other than Italian and its dialects, four regional languages are recognised as
official languages: German, Ladin, French, Slovenian
 Other than teaching of Italian to migrant students, the cornerstone of research here
include:
i. Promotion of these languages as subjects in public schooling, on
ii. Challenges of this multilingual education in relation to sociolinguistic circumstances ,
and
iii. On student performance.
 Recently, multilingualism has gained attention with respect to field of education on
how linguistic diversity may be supported in schools as an aspect of intercultural
education.
3. Nethelands

 Around 25% of the population has a migrant background, with Papiamento,

Turkish, Arabic and Polish being widely spoken by their
respective communities.

 Frisian is an officially recognised minority language and is part of the

education system in Friesland. However, dialects such as Limburgish and
Low-Saxon currently struggle for more inclusion in education.

 The focus of language education is mostly still on the acquisition of English

as a foreign language in early education or on Dutch-English bilingual
programmes.
4. Portugal
 The official languages of Portugal are Portuguese as well the regional
autochthonous language, Mirandese.
 Urban areas include a lot of migration-induced multilingualism. Primary and
secondary school population has an immigrant background, mostly from
the former Portuguese colonies, as well as Eastern Europe, China and France.
 Research has been carried out on foreign languages, teacher and learner
autonomy, Portuguese as a second language, and technology-based teaching
and learning.
 In formal education, interest is especially paid to strategies, resources
and professional development in relation to Portuguese as a second language.
 Developing the Portuguese-language proficiency among immigrant students to
ensure access to the curriculum is a major priority in education. However,
these days educational research has started paying attention to migrant
languages as a new focus area.
5. Spain
 The regional languages with official recognition are Basque, Galician and
Catalan, whereas Aragonese, Asturian and Leonese are recognised, though not
official, autochthonous minority languages.
 Therefore, speakers of regional languages in Spain are mostly cases bi- or
multilingual, and foreign languages such as English, French, Portuguese
are acquired in schools.
 The language policy and research in Spain is primarily focused on the three
regional languages, Basque, Galician and Catalan.
 These three are both school subjects as well as medium of instruction in the
respective regions.
 While many migrants speak Spanish as their first language, official figures
indicate that 7% of immigrants come from non-Spanish speaking countries
(mainly Morocco and Romania).
 Most of the recent research on language education is focused on the benefits
of CLIL for teaching foreign languages or the relationships between
regional languages, multilingualism, etc.
(See also: Duarte et al., 2020)
 Beyond languages
 Research on interactive apps, for learning various subjects like mathematics, is
looking at language use of the learners.

 In one such study, children (5-6 years) attending a bilingual immersion school were
given apps to learn mathematics.

 The results showed that the children learned better through the app as compared to
the standard teaching practice.

 What is more interesting is that they did better irrespective of language (L1/L2).

 Proficiency in language was found to be a factor, when compared between the

languages of instruction in the apps.
 Studies like this bring out possibilities of new grounds of research linking bilingual
educational theories to educational apps

 The findings can be extended to different settings like

 controlled,
 real-world,
 bilingual immersion setting

 highlights important directions for improving app-based instruction for bilingual

children.

(Laura A. Outhwaite, Anthea Gulliford and Nicola J. Pitchford 2020)

 Applying what we learnt.
 Research for the sake of research is a good idea
 But having an applied domain for the same research is always a little better.
 Few areas of practical application where cognitive and psycholinguistic
knowledge of bilingualism can be utilized:
 Language teaching
 Translation
 Intercultural communication
 Marketing etc.
 Linguistic relativity and language
teaching
 In pre Chomsky era, there was a belief that languages can differ from each other
without limit and in unpredictable ways. (Joos 1957)

 If cognition also varies similarly uncontrollably, then teaching language becomes

very difficult, if not impossible.

 Because learning another language would mean learning a whole new set of
concepts.

 For example, teaching the ‘I have been to the USA’ Vs ‘I went to USA’ difference.
 Post Chomsky, and the propagation of the idea of a strict separation between
language (computation system) and intentional-conceptual system, meant that
language teachers can ignore cognition and just focus of language.

 Because concepts are unvaried.

 For the most part, language teaching methods have focussed primarily on
language, with a ‘nod in the direction of culture’.
 On the other hand,

 If one accepts that speakers of different languages think differently, it entails:

 second language teaching need to take into account what those differences are
 Which of them are teachable
 And how to teach them.

 For example, Japanese and English have different ways to categorize objects: by
material and by shape.

 Now, teaching English to Japanese will need to address this issue.

 Yet another viewpoint

 Neither language nor cognition is static in L2 users.

 Many scholars have claimed that bilinguals’ concepts are not precisely the same as
monolinguals in either of the languages.

 Rather something distinct of their own, a ‘third place’.

 The bilingual learner creates his own unique blend of concept, on the margins of the
official position.

 The L2 teaching, in this view, need not force the learner to ‘learn’ the concepts of the
L2 but allow them to create their own blend of L1 and L2 ideas.
 Goals of language teaching

 Why teach a second language at all? Is like Benjamin Franklin asking

“what is the use of new-born baby?”.

 Humans have enormous potential and a new language might as well be

a tool to achieve some of that.

 There are some other less philosophical and more practical reasons too.
And there are innumerable right answers.
 Whatever be the goal, the ideas encoded in different languages, more so
when these are different from L1, need to be taken into account.

 In this way, teaching of L2 can be more fruitful with better

communicative competence.
 Translation
 Linguistic relativity :
 Von Humboldt (1836) was the first to propagate that language helps determine
the speaker’s ‘Weltanschauung’(worldview).
 It was conceived of as an inner form, a structure that corresponds to the
speaker’s thought processes.
 However, he did not really mean it to be strict, and deterministic.
 Deep structure of all languages are same (later this idea was taken up by
Chomsky).
 Language, as per him, is not a ready made ‘Ergon’(static and fixed product), but
rather a ‘Thatigkeit’ (an activity/task).
 This is a flexible system, both in terms of incorporating new words and new
concepts
 This idea is in a sense precursor to Jacobson’s axiom of expressibility
and the concomitant law of universal translatability.
 Jacobson (1959) said, “all cognitive experiences and its classification is
conveyable in any existing language”.
 Much later Whorf catalogued data on American Indian languages and
Standard Average European languages (English, German, French,
German etc) to show the differences between them
 And inferred that the linguistic difference means mental and behavioural
differences too.
 One need not really go to American Indian languages, there are differences among
languages that are typologically closer too.

 But if this connection is to be strict, one can easily say that ‘translation’ would be
theoretically (and practically) impossible.

 It is also logically impossible to learn a new language

 MacNamara (1970) talked about the impossibility of bilingualism and translation if
linguistic determinism was to be true.

 As per him, Whorfian bilingual’ will be unable to communicate with himself,

 A person, when switching from language A to language B will not be able to

understand what he had just said in language A.
 Consequences of the linguistic determinism has been long criticised.

 Many have agreed rather that languages are different in terms explicitness and
emphasis.

 Especially Dan Slobin’s thinking for Speaking theory.

 Intercultural communication

 The field of intercultural communication has roots in second language acquisition

studies (Lado 1957)
 Similarly, research on cross cultural non-verbal communication within social
psychology has also influenced the dominant frame within which to discuss these
issues. (Hall 1959).
 Social psychology is more interested in the dynamics of group interaction in terms of
distinctiveness.
 How one group differs from another in terms of communicative style, for example.
 While doing so, they maintain a difference between intercultural communication and
cross cultural communication.
 Today, these terms are often used interchangeably
 In today’s terms, inter-cultural communication is a type of communication between
participants ‘who share few cultural representations’ as opposed to most of the cultural
representations. ( Zegerac 2007).
 The degree of similarity of cultural representations has been , as expected, a matter of
discussion.

 Studies have pointed out the finer aspects of what and how the differences/similarities
might surface and how they impact communication.

(Schultz 1972; Hamers & Blanc 1983; Zegerac 2007; Ma 2004)

 ICC, language learning/teaching

 ICC competence has been studied within this domain too.

 One such aspect of proposed competence is ‘bistylistic competency’

 These refer to norms of speech in the other language. For example, Canadian bilinguals in
immersion programs were said to emerge better at sociolinguistic norms in their L2.

 Intercultural effectiveness of communication has often been considered connected to overall

communicative competence.

( Young, Sachdev & Seedhouse 2009; Byram & Zerate 1997; Bennet 1998; Young & Sachdev
2009; Heugen 1956)
 One common criticism of ICC is that it tends to over-emphasise cultural differences
and negates individual agency.

 Needless to say both the terms ‘culture’ and ‘communication’ have gotten into a bit
of definition issue, with scholars using less of empirical evidence than rhetoric.

 There are few exceptions, though ( Holliday, Hyde & Kullman 2004; Young &
Sachdev 2009)
 Other areas to relate to ICC are ethnography and discourse analysis.

 These fields have looked at intra vs inter cultural differences, while being sensitive to
the multiple memberships of different cultural group one can have

 Though most of the research in this domain are not explicitly linked to cognition per
se, some do link the ICC to cognitive processes. (Wierzbicka 1991; Goddard 2006)

(Bauman 1996; Rampton 1995)

 Most of the studies that do link ICC to cognitive processes, are related to linguistic relativity
studies.
 Some examples
 Berlin and Kay (1969): studies on color categories and their perception.
 Berlin (1992) cross cultural similarities in plant and animal classification.
 Cognitive consequences of linguistic differences in the domain of spatial location. (Lucy
1992)
 Similar studies have looked at the difference between Indo-European and Australian
Aboriginal language in terms of Frames of References (relative Vs absolutive) (Levinson
1997)
 speech acts for apologies using similar semantic strategies across language (KSPER & Rose
2001)

(Cook & Bassetti 2011)

 Wierzbicka has explored the relationship between thought patterns and intercultural
pragmatics
 Cultural attitudes condition people, which, in turn, make them constantly aware of
others
 And this leads to objectivism being regarded as important social values, as per
Wierzbicka.

 This is visible in second language conversation most, when the speakers aare still
under the influence of L1 cultural schemata

 The idea of schemata resulting in behaviour has also been explored by Nishida (1999),
in connection with bilingualism.
 Buy-lingual consumer: advertising and
bilingualism
 Bilingual consumer’s response to advertisements
 Studies in this area often take RHM as the starting point to argue that L1 has stronger
link to concepts.
 This will lead to greater memory and comprehension of Ad-texts in L1 than in L2.
 One study that looked into this aspect, found that if there is strong correlation between
the picture and Ad text, there might be high memory of the Ad’s claims, but if the
correlation is weak, the memory for the claim is less.
 This is true even with fluent bilinguals.
 So, pictures make up for weaker L2-conceptual link.

(Le Heij, Hooglander & Van der Velden1996)

 Code switching in advertisement

 Using the code-switched speech to replicate real life experience.

 This , in turn, is expected to capture the audience attention easily and help in the
goal of the advertisers.

 in the Indian print and audio-visual media, code-switched language use is common.

 Thanda matlab coca cola

 Life ke saath bhi life ke baad bhi
 Studies in this domain have looked into two major questions:

 The linguistic structural constraints on code switched slogans.

 Sociolinguistic implications of code switching for consumers’ response to such slogans

 With these few domains of latest basic and applied research on bilingualism, we
have come to the end of the course.

 Hope you have learnt something new and that would inspire you to take a deeper
look at BILINGUALISM.

Thank you for your attention.

 References
 Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review. Int. J. Biling. 7, 71–87.
doi: 10.1177/13670069030070010501
 Wunder, E.-M. (2011). Crosslinguistic influence in multilingual language acquisition: phonology in third or
additional language acquisition. New Trends Crossling. Influen. Multiling. Res. 60:105. doi:
10.21832/9781847694430-008
 Hoffmann, C. (2001). Towards a description of trilingual competence. Int. J. Biling. 5, 1–17. doi: 10.10/fkrdhx
 ´Niyekawa, A. M. (1983). Biliteracy acquisition and its sociocultural effects. In M. Chu-Chang (Ed.), Asian and
Pacific-American perspectives in bilingual education (pp. 97-119). New York: Teachers College Press.
 ´Collins, P., & Ho, T. Bilingualism and Biliteracy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.
[Link]
 ´Ng, E. (2015). Bilingualism, biliteracy and cognitive effects: A review paper.
 ´Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first and second languageproficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok
(Ed.), Languageprocessing in bilingual children (pp. 70-89). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
 ´Valdés, G. (2000). The teaching of heritage languages: an introduction for Slavic-teaching professionals. The
learning and teaching of Slavic languages and cultures. Olga Kagan and Benjamin Rifkin. pp. 375–403.
 ´Bayram, F., Rothman, J., Di Pisa, G., & Slabakova, R. (2020, March 25). Current Trends and Emerging
Methodologies in Charting Heritage Language Bilingual Grammars. [Link]
 ´DeLuca, V., Rothman, J., Bialystok, E., & Pliatsikas, C. (2019). Redefining bilingualism as a spectrum of
experiences that differentially affects brain structure and function. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 116(15), 7565-7574.
 Li P, Legault J, Litcofsky KA (2014) Neuroplasticity as a function of second languagelearning: Anatomical changes
in the human brain.Cortex58:301–324