- Refine your editions:
- Bilingual Competence and Bilingual Proficiency in Child Development
- In this Book
- Project MUSE - Bilingual Competence and Bilingual Proficiency in Child Development
Exceptional circumstances of material economy and access to technology even pose the question of cognitive and linguistic exceptionality. With this in mind, the reader is encouraged to consider the results from a eld study of an indigenous-language-speaking community very different from the one described here: the Pirah of the Amazon region Everett In fact, the two communities differ radically in almost every way; but this is not of primary concern to us yet. Everetts ndings should be consulted rst because they point to general conclusions that differ fundamentally from the model of language ability that we will consider here.
Refine your editions:
In this way, they stand as a pointed challenge. Second, in keeping with the idea of evaluating functionalistoriented research in order to self-critique traditional generative approaches to language competence, we want to try to account for some of the strong conclusions of the Pirah study. One question that Everett raises is, what are the basic, indispensable design features of grammar shared by all languages? For example, is recursion one of them? Pinker and Jackendoff present an interesting discussion of Everetts claims on this point.
There are two threads in the discussion that will follow this introduction, like parallel story lines of a narrative.
One is the report and analysis of ndings from a comprehensive evaluation of literacy-related abilities in two languages in the special circumstances of national languageindigenous language bilingualism. In some. The other thread, interwoven among the chapters of the rst, is a survey and assessment of the research literature that bears more directly on the theoretical topics introduced earlier: modularity, the poverty-of-stimulus problem, and the relationship between competence and prociency.
The rst thread should be most useful to bilingual educators and researchers who work in school settings.
- Burnout im Lehrerberuf (German Edition).
- Bilingual Competence and Bilingual Proficiency In Child Development;
- Bilingual Competence and Bilingual Proficiency in Child Development | The MIT Press;
- Bilingual Competence and Bilingual Prociency in Child Development.
- Apartment Gardening?
- 6 editions of this work.
- Black Light of Day.
But in the end, the book comes down to a proposal for looking seriously at the three concepts in the second thread. While the research ndings reported here do not prove that any one version of modularity is correct, they do raise the possibility that further research might. In any case, proposals about concepts that have yet to attain broad consensus are useful in describing and beginning to understand things. The second thread invites researchers from outside the connes of bilingualism and bilingual education to look at new opportunities in the applied disciplines of language learning and language teaching.
The discussion in chapter 2 continues the themes of this introduction. Researchers interested in cognitive science approaches to bilingualism often lose sight of why anyone else might be interested in the internal workings of mental entities. We should not forget about the potential broader applications of work centered on developmental issues involving school-age children, to name just one area of concern to practitioners.
For example, if a better understanding of bilingualism and L2 learning eventually could lead to a consensus on more efcient L2 teaching approaches, this would represent a major practical contribution of linguistic and psychological science. This advance would have a cascading effect in a number of areas, including facilitating literacy learning in L2s, providing earlier and more complete access to academic content, and developing other higher-order cognitive abilities associated with schooling. Both applied and theoretical researchers would benet.
The advance would open up discussion in the eld of educational practice to new ideas in short supply in some parts. At the same time, it would provide a real-world corrective in regard to which scientic questions are truly important. Finally, well-designed studies of language teaching and related macrolevel sociolinguistic phenomena can contribute to formulating critical alternative hypotheses for psychologists and linguists.
This chapters discussion of bilingual education policy worldwide sets the stage for looking at a local example in chapter 3. The Mexican study of academic language ability in Spanish and Nahuatl, reported in chapter 3, provides some conrming evidence for Cumminss CUP model. Chapter 3 also presents the rst attempt at a more explicit version of this model. Although the proposed modication will have to be abandoned in chapter 5, it deserves a moments consideration, the idea being that the conceptual subcomponents of. If something is really shared, it shouldnt reside with or be the property of either component.
The options are belonging to neither or to both. This problem only gets a partial solution in chapter 3, but with the door left open for the proposed models next, more elaborated, version. All the versions, by the way, owe their usefulness in modeling bilingual prociency to one idea: the many multidirectional interactions between L1 and L2 are not all of the same kind. The metaphor of transfer has captured the nature of these interactions; at the same time, it has introduced a simplication that sometimes makes things harder to understand.
The Mexican study raised more questions than a descriptive investigation of limited scope could even begin to approach. Chapters 4 and 5 start to look beyond the connes of that project. The studies of bilingualism that are reviewed in these chapters are of an order that our project could never have gathered the resources for, materially or theoretically. Hence, our most sincere gratitude goes to the many authors cited in this book for the meticulous reconstruction, for our benet, of their investigations. The most suggestive are those that delve into the fascinating realm of exceptional bilingualism, in which atypical conditions of language development are truly pushed to the limit.
Chapter 5 concludes with a presentation of a bilingual version of Jackendoff s Tripartite Parallel Architecture. Chapter 6 takes up one of the big topics in the study of bilingualism today: the question of critical period effects in L2 learning. It is proposed that the debate around nearly every aspect of this question might benet from a new lens: results from the emerging eld of study into child language attrition. Far from merely documenting a phenomenon restricted to small, endangered languages, the study of how language loss unfolds reveals universal properties of linguistic competence.
Bilingual educators might recognize this phenomenon under the name of subtractive bilingualism. For many years, the eld has shied away from a serious examination of this particular outcome of child bilingualism, treating it as something simply to avoid in its commitment to the additive alternative. One unfortunate side effect has been failure to recognize fully how pervasive, normal, and even typical the subtractive variant actually is in many L2-learning situations.
Neglecting the scientic study of L1 attrition in this way has led many practitioners to irt with unclear notions such as semilingualism. This happens, for example, when trying to make the at times exaggerated case that subtractive bilingualism is always disruptive and damaging to childrens development. For minority language communities concerned about preserving their linguistic heritage, understanding language attrition should be important from the point of view of designing an effective language preservation program.
Chapter 7 proposes that academic language prociency rests upon a foundation formed by two major dimensions of ability: secondary discourse ability and metalinguistic awareness. The chapter focuses on studies of bilingual and L2 literacy and provides a framework for distinguishing one kind of ability from another. It also concludes the discussion of the competence-performance distinction with some concrete examples.
Chapters 8 and 9 return to the original study of the Nahuatl-speaking community in Mexico. Chapter 8 examines an aspect of literacy learning for which metalinguistic awarenessreection on language formsshould gure in an important way: self-correction. How do bilingual children respond when asked to shift their attention to orthographic, grammatical, and discourse-level patterns in their own writing? How do they respond when asked to do this both in the language in which writing skills are normally practiced in school, and in their nonacademic language?
Chapter 9 then explores how children shift to a focus on form in reading. Chapter 10, aside from giving cause for optimism about future directions in research, questions the usefulness of some popular approaches to bilingualism in school that run counter to the modular perspective. Current evidence from various quarters argues rather convincingly that this perspective should at least be considered with an open mind. Specically, the critique in chapter 10 centers on strong versions of the whole-language philosophy. This book proposes that the study of bilingualism might advance more productively if it began with an analysis of the components of bilingual ability.
These components are best thought of as internally structured subsystems, in interactive connections of different kinds. Crucially, however, the components and connections cannot do whatever they want; and central cognitive domains cannot direct the lower-level components any way they want to, either. This componential approach should provide a better understanding of bilingual childrens abilities, more reliable and meaningful assessments of their abilities in school, and more effective teaching models, above all in literacy and L2 learning.
The appendices offer new data to contemplate, data that students of bilingualism are invited to try their own hand at analyzing. The data illustrate key concepts discussed in the chapters, along with some preliminary interpretations. The appendices include 1 procedures for evaluating an aspect of metalinguistic awareness related to childrens knowledge of two languages; 2 a summary of ndings from a broad range of measures of developing additive bilingualism, including indices of lexical borrowing, shifts in language dominance, ethnolinguistic loyalty, and observations of language use in conversation; 3 codeswitching data from early simultaneous bilingualism; and 4 writing samples from Nahuatl-Spanish bilingual students.
With all of these topics in mind, the reader is asked to critically evaluate the usefulness of the three guiding concepts introduced in this chapter: the competenceprociency distinction, the poverty-of-stimulus problem applied to bilingualism, and modularity. This is the overarching objective of the next nine chapters. A good starting place is to consult the glossary entry for each concept. Before we take up the evidence from studies of bilingual competence and bilingual prociency as these develop within individuals, it is important to look at the broader implications of language contact and multilingualism.
Why should the problems the details, in particular of development and learning matter to people who make decisions about language policy, especially in school? The next chapter will explore this question. This chapter outlines the basic principles for understanding bilingual and L2 learning, applicable to multilingual and multicultural educational institutions. Chapter 3 will bring this focus down to one bilingual school in particular.
The study of how children learn second languages and how the L1 and L2 subsystems interact under different conditions of development should be an important part of an informed discussion of language-teaching practices. Often, though, debates on school language policy suffer from a restricted perspective that elevates sociopolitical questions above all others.
Setting aside the developmental principles of bilingualism in this way renders the discussion incomplete and incoherent. Language policy-making needs to reckon with the internal constraints on language learning in addition to external social factors. On the other hand, the application of language-learning principles in real time, in actual language-learning situations, and across diverse populations, offers important evidence for cognitive scientists.
Converging conclusions from research are not far off on three important practical applications: 1. A consensus is emerging on the most productive approaches to L2 teaching. Inefcient and unreliable methods impose an onerous cost when valuable resources are squandered. What are the conditions that maximize the learning potential of young L2 learners?
Since language is an indispensable tool for higher-order thinking, the most advantageous conditions for intellectual and academic development are closely related to the optimal development of language abilities. Specically, when there is a mismatch between language of instruction and the childs linguistic competence, what measures are necessary to ensure comprehension and maximize engagement with meaningful instruction?
Especially in situations of intense contact among languages resulting in language shift and attrition, what policies and practices might yield tangible results for revitalizing or preserving a national, regional, or ethnic minority language? If the promotion of a nondiscriminatory societal bilingualism comes to be an actual planning objective, basic acquisition and learning principles, especially concerning child bilingual development, should be at the heart of any public policy debate.
Critical social justice issues come to the fore when language-learning resources are not distributed equitably and when sociolinguistic imbalances coincide with economic inequalities. These issues are easier to understand if research ndings from cognitive science are included in the discussion. As globalization increasingly leads to labor force migration, fewer and fewer school systems in labor-receiving countries can afford to maintain their former one stateone language educational policies J.
Anderson ; Wright The progressive shift toward more pluralistic language policies is an irresistible consequence of the new immigration trends. See the discussion in Spolsky on the breakdown of the monolingual ideal of early Zionist language policy in Israel; Glastra and Schedler on the question of citizenship and language in Europe; and T. Wiley for a historical note on language pluralism in the United States that puts the current English-only restrictions into a broader perspective. Among the labor-exporting countries, recent proposals for pluralistic language models have offered alternatives to highly centralized integrationist educational models inherited from the past.
The continuing crisis of equal access to school literacy in receiving and exporting countries alike will require a better understanding of both social relations in language contact and the principles of language learning. Especially in regard to the latter, questions related to child development during the primaryschool years most urgently demand our attention. Two dimensions of child language development in bilingual and multilingual contexts are fundamental to the debate over language policy.
The debate is often framed in terms of linguistic rights to which all individuals should be able to lay claim: access to effective L2-learning opportunities, and the use and development of ones own primary language. In the literature on this question, often the second prerogative is emphasized. However, as this chapter will show, a one-sided emphasis would result in only partially afrming the schools responsibility in language learning.
For multilingual institutions that face changing relations of language contact e. This problem will continue to be critical in the coming years in a number of countries as they apply the above-mentioned principles. The recent language policy reforms in South Africa offer the broadest lessons, in part because the scope of the reforms is so ambitious. This chapter will consider the options that the concept of diglossia allows for, and how it might be applied to language-teaching curricula to meet the challenges of linguistic diversity. Which language or languages are to be designated as medium of instruction and which as language-learning objectives keeping in mind that these categories overlap involves policy decisions with broad repercussions.
For example, exclusionary language policies lead to persistently unequal levels of literacy learning and academic achievement.
Bilingual Competence and Bilingual Proficiency in Child Development
School language policy also has consequences for childrens ability to maintain competence in a natively acquired language and successfully learn a second. For the communities to which individual language learners belong, language policy affects tendencies in language preservation and language shift.
Studies of language policy and planning normally focus on community, regional, and nationwide issues; sociolinguistic concepts are naturally at the center of discussion. In this regard, for most multilingual states there remains an inescapable distinction between national-ofcial-language-of-wider-communication and vernacular, indigenous, or minority language. This distinction raises the need to take account of both language-learning constraints and linguistic rights. These rights apply most directly to child language learners. A narrow view of the relevant prerogatives, which for example might encompass solely social and political considerations of language policy, would result in a partial and distorted perspective.
Much of the current debate on multilingualism and schooling in fact suffers from this defect. Thus, taking developmental psycholinguistic factors into consideration in analyzing language contact situations will inform policy and planning on fundamental concepts.
The complexity of these multilingual situations, especially those where sharp sociolinguistic inequalities persist, simply cannot be addressed by any one social science discipline on its own. Most notably, in the literature from the elds of cultural studies and multiculturalism, the disparagement of what are variously referred to as technical questions or positivist and scientic experimental approaches only serves to narrow the eld of inquiry and debate for one example, see Zentella In multilingual school systems, the stakes are raised along a number of critical dimensions.
Two that immediately present themselves are L2 learning and L1 development. Both invoke questions about the language-learning needs and the linguistic rights of individual learners: 1. Multilingual and multicultural educational institutions face the need to prioritize the most effective and efcient methods of learning second languages, within an optimal time period, for three purposes: Access, without unnecessary delay, in developmental terms, to available didactic materials and texts, and the national language of schooling.
This timely access. Where these resources are lacking, multilingual school systems have few alternatives to shifting more and more teaching resources toward languages-of-wider-communication as medium of instruction. Learning regionally prominent languages of wider communication e. Under all three categories, considerations of effectivity and efciency of L2 learning are more pressing than most commentators have acknowledged.
For example, the consequences of inadequate achievement for the North American English-speaking foreign language student are such that the incentives for maximizing pedagogical efcacy can even come to be viewed as secondary. This in fact would not be an implausible explanation for the relatively decient state of students performance. Such a luxury cannot be entertained, for example, by monolingual indigenouslanguage speakers and child immigrants not at liberty to neglect the development of prociency in the national language of schooling.
For them, the stakes in L2 learning are high. The need for access to texts and high motivation on the part of students and their families should prompt educational planners to consider only the most productive and effective program models. In one sense, the dimension of L1 development can be reformulated more fundamentally as simply language development. Core linguistic competence and primary discourse ability evolve and attain their steady complete states even under the most adverse conditions where schooling and literacy learning are denied.
However, in all cultures the development of higher-order literacy-related discourses and specic academic language abilities requires active engagement through the medium of a language that can be processed grammatically and understood keeping in mind that the language that is best understood is not necessarily a childs L1. This aspect of language development is often facilitated, most effectively and efciently, with the signicant participation of the childs primary language, in conjunction with early L2-medium instruction. This traditional principle of mother tongue MT inclusion in early literacy development UNESCO , to date unrefuted, follows selfevidently in the case of young preliterate children who understand no other language.
In addition, if language revitalization gures among a communitys planning objectives, L1 development in primary school cannot be left unattended, abandoning the eld to exclusive NL-medium instruction. This dual-language learning right consisting of dimensions 1 and 2 above has provided a unifying conceptual framework for our research teams work over the years in bilingual indigenous education in Mexico and the United States Carrillo Avelar ; N. Francis and Navarrete Gmez ; N.
Francis and Reyhner ; Hamel ; Hamel and Francis Here, it is being extended to all bilingual and multilingual instruction for which child L2 learning is not optional. For example, language policies whose purpose it is to consolidate a national identity may conceive of this consolidation in a way that contravenes one dimension or the other of this right. Optimizing dimension 1 L2 learning hastens unfettered access to academic texts and other materials if childrens L1 does not allow for access to these resources.
Efcient L2 learning also frees up instructional resources for L1 development dimension 2 if this has become the actively assumed objective of the bilingual speech community. Crucially, L2 learning needs to be advanced for the purpose of facilitating L2 literacy tied to academic texts where this is necessary. Baker points out, bilingual education cannot be justied solely as a means of language preservation.
In some cases, from the perspective of the speech community itself, it may not even turn out to be a high priority. In the end, the most fundamental language right consists of unimpeded development of higherorder language abilities and literacy. In turn, this development provides the most favorable conditions for successful L2 learning. For vernacular-language speakers and speakers of smaller languages, the need to develop prociency in a L2NL-of-wider-communication is conditioned by the degree of diglossic separation in the realm of literacy between the NL and their native language.
Today, in some areas of academic study, even a strong NL a language of international communication, spoken by hundreds of millions, laying claim.
In this Book
At one extreme, in relation to a NL of extensive material and cultural resources, lies an isolated indigenous language IL , lacking even an externally introduced writing system. At the other extreme lies the language contact situation of a NL and an IL of differing degrees of literary tradition, current text production, and accessibility. In other regions, a similar evolution is found within the borders of a single state. Johnson ; McGroarty For a discussion of diglossia, see Ferguson , Fishman , and with respect to literacy Hornberger and Romaine Not all languages of a multilingual school system spoken by children and their families can, or should under all circumstances, be afforded the same status in the language-learning curriculum.
This principle applies regardless of the absolute number of languages spoken; that is, it is not simply a practical consideration of too many languages.
Project MUSE - Bilingual Competence and Bilingual Proficiency in Child Development
Taking up again the two dimensions of childrens languagelearning needs and language rights, and beginning with dimension 2, primarylanguage development: specic pedagogical provisions follow from determining which language children understand, or understand more completely.
In the case of initial literacy teaching, for example, not just any combination of languages that could serve as medium of instruction may conform to language learners developmental needs. To take one example, sociopolitical considerations related to preserving or revitalizing the disfavored or threatened language of a nationality will usually require elevating the status of the nationalitys threatened language above all others.
Afrmative or preferential measures may even include the setting of specic. Students need to meet academic objectives in line with international standards and gain access to prerequisite texts. Preferably, this convergence would be initiated in a conscious and systematic way in the early primary grades. Depending on the circumstances, such a convergence will vary in proportion and tempo; as a case in point, consider the ofcial language education policy for Tanzania.
A particularly instructive example of the need to provide for a multidisciplinary perspective is the dilemma that confronts formerly subordinate language groups now in a position of language policy and planning authority e. In these cases, where the new NL is still under the displacing pressures of the former NL Spanish, English, and Russian, respectively and is spoken by sizable minorities of monolinguals within the new autonomous jurisdictions, school language policy is often guided by the need to normalize the new NLs use.
This normalization typically requires all students to demonstrate successively advanced levels of prociency in the new NL as they progress through the grades. Under such circumstances, understanding developmental constraints and the principles of language acquisition and learning, of L1 and L2, is indispensable for informing school language policy. One starting point could be the preservation and revitalization of the still disfavored new NL, essential emblem of the newly reconstituted nation.
In many cases, however, the dilemma is not easily resolved. All variants of linguistic cleansing are always and under all circumstances excluded. Therefore, a dual-language transitional program is proposed such that the linguistic rights and language-learning needs of the new language minority are taken into account. Fortunately, from the perspective of the new language minority the Spanish-speaking Catalonian, the Anglophone native of Montreal, the Russophone Estonian, etc.
From the perspective of languageplanning authorities, as cooler heads continue to prevail, such a coincidence is. Integrating minority-language speakers into pluralistic educational settings also facilitates the learning of L2s, in this case a new NL. For example, providing Russian speakers in the former Soviet republics with extended bilingual instruction, a long-term transitional program consisting of Russian-medium content teaching in the primary and secondary levels facilitates their academic integration.
In the long run, such integration is also compatible with L2 learning of Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Armenian, and so on. Specically, a policy that is informed by the two fundamental dimensions of language development will favor the following outcomes: 1. It will create the curricular foundation for the most effective and efcient L2 learning of the new NL by applying the concepts that have emerged from research on child bilingualism. At the same time, it will ensure the most favorable conditions for language development.
All other factors being equal, initial literacy development proceeds most effectively with the signicant participation of the language the child understands. This also applies to developing skilled reading and writing in the highly decontextualized and cognitively demanding curricular areas. In the meantime, prociency in the L2 develops through predictable stages, though students traverse timetables and attain milestones at highly varying rates; ultimate attainment varies as well.
Dual-language transitional programs that foresee this variation have been well-advised to reserve signicant portions of the early core curriculum for primarylanguage-medium instruction for monolingual speakers. Such a policy of early bilingual instruction could be signicantly extended, easing the transition to predominantly L2-medium instruction, and guarding against a politically motivated or pedagogically uninformed exclusion of the former NL at the higher grade levels.
Another example might be to allow some qualifying exams to be taken in Russian by L2 learners of Latvian and Estonian, in Spanish by L2 learners of Catalan, and so forth. Again, inclusionary measures that respond to sociopolitical concerns of minority communities families whose L2 beginner children are at the same time struggling with new NL-medium instruction coincide with language-learning theory and current L2 pedagogy.
To this end, Artigal and Sigun sketch the outlines of best-practice content-based immersion in the L2 teaching of Catalan in the elementary grades, as do Cormier and Turnbull and Wesche for French immersion in Canada. Thus, the policy dilemma on this specic question is resolved because the imperatives of normalizing the use of the new NL do not need to be balanced against the developmental needs of the beginning L2 learner, speaker of the previously favored language.
In the last section, we considered the problem of L2 learning on the part of language minority students in new political situations where majorities have gained the right to establish their previously subordinate language as medium of instruction. The new language policy applies not only for native speakers of the new NL but often also for children who had never learned it, and for new immigrants into the now autonomous state or region. Similar, in some ways, is the requirement that children learn an ofcial language as a L2 that is rarely spoken by anyone outside of the capital city, as in the case of many newly independent countries in Asia and Africa.
Several questions immediately arise: To what level or standard of prociency should child L2 learners be held?
What general expectations should be established in regard to mastery of academic objectives in the L2 for both native speakers and L2 learners? What expectations should be set for different entrance requirements for secondary and higher education? The dilemma is this: normally, the rate of L2 learning in situations in which the school is the primary sometimes only source of L2 input is highly variable, with many learners advancing toward mastery slowly.
In response to this predictable lag in L2 learning, a common solution is to intensify the teaching of the linguistic subcomponents of the L2. This emphasis takes up a great percentage of available instructional time and resourcestime and resources that are now less available for work in the content area curriculum. Integration of L2 and content teaching is a necessary part of the solution, but insufcient by itself. Returning to the question of what standards should be required, we can begin with a functional analysis of the different domains and subsystems of language prociency.
Taking complete native-speaker prociency of the target L2 as a hypothetical standard, mastery of which linguistic subsystems is most essential for a given purpose? For example, in order to access L2 academic texts as if L2 learning were needed only for this purpose , it would be necessary to master a highly circumscribed set of language skillsbut not all the skills that characterize certain aspects of native-speaker prociency.
This specic instrumental goal would lie at one extreme of a series of prociency sets that progressively incorporate other domains of the target L2. The nal consensus on this difcult question of educational language policy would depend on a host of factors, many of which are often largely independent of childrens developmental needs. But optimally, external requirements should be evaluated with these developmental constraints in mind. In any case, curricular efciency would advise against intensive direct teaching and extensive practice dedicated to certain lower-level skillsfor example, those whose only.
These considerations are relevant to the interesting broader questions posed in regard to appropriate L2 learning objectives from researchers in the rapidly growing eld of World Englishes He and Li The appropriate question to ask is not how closely the L2 learner can approach target norms. Rather, it is which components of the L2 grammar are most useful and most easily attainable, at each stage of L2 development and at each stage of academic achievement.
The adoption of content-based L2 teaching models helps resolve this issue by focusing the greatest attention on those aspects of grammar that students need for specic text comprehension and expressive tasks Haley and Austin ; Hamel and Francis ; Stoller In contrast, a prescriptive approach to attaining native-speaker norms in the abstract suffers from two serious difculties: 1.
It fails to recognize that advances in L2 learning are systematic, in some ways analogous to the stages that children pass through in L1 acquisition. In other words, even L2 learners grammatical errors are evidence of constructed knowledge, termed interlanguage. While at the beginner levels it is still incomplete and decient, advanced levels of interlanguage competence easily and completely serve certain academic purposes.
It is an invaluable read for researchers in the fields of language acquisition, bilingual development, and language education as well as for language planners and educational authorities in areas that serve minority bilingual populations. Based on years of research on bilingual children in the Mexican countryside, Norbert Francis draws a much larger picture in this comprehensive overview.
He successfully bridges the gap between the growing theoretical literature on bilingual child development and the concerns of educators and policy makers. Search Search. Search Advanced Search close Close. Preview Preview. Bilingual Competence and Bilingual Proficiency in Child Development By Norbert Francis A study of first and second language development in an indigenous community with implications for broader linguistic and cognitive issues.
Request Permissions Exam copy. Componential Approaches to the Study of Language Proficiency pp. Chapter 5. Research on the Components of Bilingual Proficiency pp. Chapter 6. Chapter 7. An Analysis of Academic Language Proficiency pp. Chapter 8. Metalinguistic Awareness, Bilingualism, and Writing pp. Chapter 9. Metalinguistic Awareness, Bilingualism, and Reading pp. Chapter Conclusion Results and Prospects pp. Appendix 2: Indices of Additive Bilingualism pp.
Appendix 3: Early Childhood Borrowing and Codeswitching pp.