Planning and delivery of effective dual language instruction is based on
theory, research, and practical applications from all of the four areas of
language inquiry. What is language? The American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association defines language as a complex and dynamic system of conventional
symbols used in various modes for communication and thought. (ASCHA 1983) A
system is organized, governed by rules, and work towards a purpose. Automobile
engines and the digestive tract are good examples of systems. Language is a
system; it is ordered and purposeful. The essential purpose for language is
communication. A careful focus on the purpose of language dispels many
unfortunate attitudes people have about languages and, concomitantly, about each
other. Teachers need an understanding of the basic purpose of language and its
usefulness in order to teach language to dual language students.
Language is an orderly combination of conventional symbols. The symbols are
the words that we use to label the words we give to objects, actions, and ideas
that we perceive in our reality. These symbols are conventional that is, we
assign a socially agreed upon symbol to objects and ideas so that we can talk
about them. We as people all agree on a name for a particular object or idea for
purposes of communication.
In English, for example, we use the word chair to identify a common object
used for supporting us when we sit. A Spanish speaker refers to the same object
as a silla. It’s altogether arbitrary: no mater what a person calls it, you
can still sit on it. The concept of the arbitrary nature of symbols used in
language becomes important when the person starts to investigate bilingualism.
Bilingual people have a strong understanding of the arbitrary nature of the
symbols of language, which enhances their problem solving skills.
There are subsystems of language. Breaking down language into its subsystems
helps facilitate the understanding of how language works and provides us with
some of the vocabulary necessary for discussing language acquisition, language
proficiency, and second language instruction. Language is generally considered
to have five fundamental subsystems, Phonological, Morphological, Syntax,
Semantics, and Pragmatics.
The phonological system is the system of the sound of language. When a person
hears speech, he/she perceives phonemes, the smallest distinguishable units of
sound, that carry meaning for that person in his/her language. It might seem to
that person that he or she ought to be able to hear the distinctions between all
of the sounds that humans produce, but that is not the case. Each language makes
use of only a small number of the wide range of possible sounds that human
beings are capable of uttering and discerning. In some languages, the sounds
that we write as p and b are heard as identical, a problem that is easier to
understand if the person considers that both sounds are produced using the same
parts of the mouth in the same fashion. The only difference is that the initial
sound in bat includes the use of voicing, while the initial sound in pat does
not. Unlike English, not all languages distinguish between voiced and voiceless
sounds. For speakers of languages that do not distinguish between these sounds,
English words such as ban and pan or bay and pay sound alike. Sign languages,
not having sound systems, have an equivalent system known as cherology. Cheremes
are the smallest units of gesture that are distinguishable and carry meaning to
a speaker of sign. (Wilbur, pp. 7-31)
Next is the Morphological system. It is the system of how words are built.
Morphemes are meaningful units, which can sometimes stand alone as words, but
often appear in combination with other morphemes. For example, the word girl has
one morpheme that carries the meaning of a young female. The word girls, has two
morphemes. The second morpheme, -s, indicates the concept of plural. Girls is a
single example, which sidesteps more complicated morphological issues, such as
the relationship between man and men.
A more complex breakdown of the theory of morphology is out of place here. It
is more important to know that words like sentences are built systematically.
The third subsystem of language is Syntax. Syntax refers to the structure or
creation of sentences. It is common but inaccurate to think of syntax as
grammar. Syntax is however, descriptive rather than prescriptive. For example,
“I don’t have a pencil” is recognizable to a native English speaker as an
acceptable sentence. On the other hand “A pencil don’t have I” sounds
awkward. It does not conform to the generally accepted patterns or rules of
English. (Language Files pp. 5-26) If we look at the sentence, “ I ain’t got
no pencil,” an English speaker knows that it is an English sentence and
conforms to English syntax. Nevertheless, people have a tendency to judge “ I
ain’t got no pencil” as incorrect English. It is not a standard usage, and
its use would be ill advised for a formal situation such as a job interview.
From a purely descriptive standpoint, however, it fits into basic English
sentence patterns. Despite the fact that it makes most teachers shudder, it is
used in numerous classrooms millions of times each day, and from a syntactical
point of view it works in English. In summary, syntax refers to the rules that
govern a language. Grammar, on the other hand, has prescriptive connotations. It
looks at whether or not particular construction conforms to a language standard.
I will try to analyze the meaning of standard language later on in my paper.
The forth subdivision of language is Semantics. Semantics is the study of
meaning. Today’s analysis has led linguists to conclude that while meaning and
structure are entirely connected, syntactical analysis of language is
insufficient to explain meaning. (Language Files pp. 5-26) One area of inquiry
in semantics is the study of words. Words can be analyzed with reference to
their denotations. Earlier in my paper, I talked about conventional symbols and
stated that the word chair refers to a piece of furniture to sit on. Chair,
however, can mean several different things depending on the context. In a
committee meeting, for example, chair may mean the person who organizes the
meeting or the action of leading the meeting.
Words also have connotations that go with their denotations. While the words
Asian and rice-eater may refer to the same person, they have very different
connotations. Asian refers to a person’s geographical or cultural origins;
rice-eater has pejorative connotations that go far beyond an observation on
dietary habits. Semantics also studies phrases and sentences and analyzes
different kinds of ambiguities. For example, the sentence, “ They were hunting
dogs”, has structural ambiguities. Thus, two different meanings are
represented with the same surface structure of language. As language users, we
daily sort out many different and ambiguous meanings. Our intuitive
understanding of semantics enables us to sort out correct meanings by relying on
linguistic context.
The fifth subdivision of language is Pragmatics. Pragmatics is the system for
the use of language in social contexts. It is not an internal linguistic
subsystem, such as phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics. Language use is
determined by the function of an interaction and by the relationship of the
people involved. (Bloom & Lahey pp.15-28). For example, “I now pronounce
you man and wife,” has no meaning if uttered by a child in play but
significant consequences when stated by an appropriate official during a wedding
ceremony.
In language, one form may serve several functions. “It’s ten after five”
may be a response to a direct question. It may also be a way of suggesting to
people that they have arrived behind schedule. Conversely, one function can take
many forms. The question, “Can we begin?” and the hint, “We’re running
short of time”, can both serve the same function. Native speakers intuitively
understand pragmatic systems. If someone asks, “Can you tell me the time,”
an English speaker, acting on his or her knowledge about language and social
context, knows that it is inappropriate to just answer, “yes.”
Paralinguistic uses include intonation, stress, rate of speech, and pauses or
hesitations. Nonlinguistic behaviors include gestures, facial expressions, and
body language. Paralinguistic and nonlinguistic behaviors differ from culture to
culture and language to language. All of these differences are often the causes
of misunderstandings in cross-cultural relationships. Students who wish to
become proficient in a second language need to pay careful attention to the
nonverbal behaviors that pertain to the languages they are studying.
Language attitudes play an important part in language acquisition and are
necessary to identify any biases and separate them from basic concepts about
language. This is necessary so that teachers can use language as an
instructional tool and also respond well to students with different languages
than their own. It is difficult to pinpoint attitudes that we hold about
languages because of the strong emotional bond that we have to our native
language. Soren Kirkegaard, the nineteenth century Danish philosopher and
writer, when referring to the porridge his mother made for him when he was a
child. He reflected that no other porridge could ever be as flavorful. We can
draw an analogy between language and Kirkegaard’s porridge; no language ever
seems quite as rich or evocative as our own.
A few of the commonly held attitudes about language need to be investigated.
Are some languages better than others? One prevalent attitude is that some
languages or varieties of a language are more correct or better than others. For
example, Spanish speakers are often asked if they speak Castilian. The Spanish
word for Castilian is Castellano. In Spain, Castellano refers to the regional
dialect of the province of Castile. In parts of Latin America, Castellano is
used to refer to Spanish in general. (Crawford pp. 12-38) The uninformed English
speaker, however, who refers to Castillian generally means something along the
lines of the King’s English; a proper, high-class form of the language.
Focusing on the fact that the primary purpose of language is communication can
dispel this attitude of others. A Spanish speaker answering the phone in
Argentina says, “Hola” (hello). In other Latin American countries they pick
up the phone and say, “Diga” (speak). Mexicans say, “Bueno” (good or
well). Mexicans joke about the expression, claiming that their phone system is
so bad that anytime they can get a call through is bueno! None of these
responses is better than any other. There are several appropriate ways to answer
a phone in Spanish. It is the person’s location that makes the response
correct. It makes sense to facilitate communication by using it according to the
local custom. Are some languages more expressive than others? One common
attitude that people hold about language is that there are ideas or feelings
that can be expressed in one language but not in another. An expression of this
bias is that some languages are less logical than others. In particular, people
sometimes suggest that some languages are not useful for communicating about
technology.
As Muriel Saville- Troike (pp 165-168) remarks, “While all languages may be
inherently capable of serving all purposes humans may ask of them, specific
languages evolve differently through processes of variation, adaptation, and
selection” (p 82). In other words, as people in a society have a need to
communicate in a particular way or about a particular subject, their language
expands and adapts to meet their needs. For example, there are several cultures
in the South Pacific that commonly use a large squash like vegetable we call
breadfruit for a variety of purposes. Breadfruit is used as a basic food, but
also serves several ritual and ceremonial purposes. People in those cultures
have many words for breadfruit that indicate its color, size, and particular
use.
Some languages borrow to meet expanding technological needs. There is a bias
against borrowing and some governments have even passed laws to limit loan
words. According to an article in Newsweek (Doerner, p. 49), the French
government has established a secretary of state for Francophone affairs, and
judgments have been levied against companies that use English words in
advertising in lieu of the French equivalents. Hebrew, however, is an example of
a language that has borrowed extensibly to meet the needs of modernization and
yet has maintained its linguistic integrity. Preserved for centuries almost
exclusively as a liturgical language, Hebrew came into everyday use when Israel
became a country in 1948. Biblical Hebrew was, of course, incompatible with the
demands of the modern world. It might be possible to say, “A way to talk to
people at a distance through wires.” But it would tiresome in real life
situations when you really just want to say, “Answer the phone.” So Hebrew
borrowed the word telephone, and in Hebrew it sounds much like the English word.
I have only expounded on only a few of the many possible attitudes about
language. Linguists agree that all languages are linguistically equal and that
every language is equally capable of expressing whatever its speakers need to
communicate. Attitudes about languages persist, however, because people feel
close emotional ties to the languages that they speak. Such attitudes are
misinterpretations of the nature and purpose of language as a human endeavor.
Although there are many language varieties only a few will be discussed in
this paper. It is commonly assumed that there is a standard, fixed and correct
form of a language against which we can measure it in a given sample of that
language. But that concept of an immutable and proper language form contradicts
the very nature of language it self. Language is flexible and responsive, and
changes constantly to meet the communication needs of the language speakers.
Students of language sometimes suggest that a language is a dialect with an
army. This humorous assertion gets close to the truth about language variation.
The term standard is elusive precisely because it has its roots in politics
rather than in any basic truth about language. Standard language is the language
of the group in power.
Formal attempts are made to standardize language. For example, Spanish is
regulated by twenth-two language academies, the oldest of which is the Real
Academia Espanola (The Royal Spanish Academy), created in Spain in 1973 by King
Philip V. The most recent academy was established in New York in 1987 in an
attempt to protect Spanish from becoming anglicized. (Chavez, p 1) The United
States has the fifth-largest Spanish speaking population in the world. and
Spanish is in constant contact with English. One result is the creation of words
like carpeta (rug), techo (roof), and almuerzo (lunch). Another outcome is the
addition of words like taco and burrito to the American English lexicon.
Spanish, along with the other Romance language, is itself the product of
languages in contact. People spoke it with an accent, overlaid with grammatical
structures from their native tongues, and sprinkled it with local words for
familiar concepts and objects. That natural process formed the basis for what we
know as modern Spanish.
Languages are dynamic. They change to meet the communication needs of their
speakers. It is possible for a “language government” such as an academy to
set a standard. The question, however, is not so much what is the standard as
who is doing the setting of the standards. Dialects are different variations of
a language used by particular groups of people. Regional dialects often have
very distinct vocabularies. A water pistol on the East Coast is a squirt gun on
the West Coast. The Spanish word for peach is melocoton in Puerto Rico and
durazno in Mexico. Languages may also be different phonologically or
syntactically from place to place. Regional differences in languages may reflect
differences in language history. American English includes usages that sound
archaic to the people of Britain and are probably a remnant from the Colonial
times. English also includes a large lexicon of words borrowed from Spanish. (McCrum,
Cram, MacNiel, pp. 62-80) People often relate regional dialects to stereotypes.
For example, in the United States, Bostonian speakers’ dialects are sometimes
considered “stuffy”. Southerners are said to have a drawl and are considered
lazy and slow moving. Such biases have nothing to do with the real nature of
dialects or the people who speak to them. Despite people’s biases, regional
differences present few problems for those native speakers. Humans are quite
responsive to language and quite flexible in their ability to communicate.
As much as language varies from place to place, it also varies among
different social groups. Social differences of language are sometimes called
sociolects. Professor Higgins in “My Fair Lady” was very aware of the
differing responses that people have to different sociolects when he undertook
his project of turning a flower peddler into a member of high society. Any
individual’s particular speech, or idiolect, is influenced by both regional
and social class factors. From a teacher’s standpoint, it is important to
remember that language can vary for many reasons and to be conscious of the
biases that may come into play when people are exposed to different varieties of
language. This awareness will help people avoid prejudging a student’s
abilities based on their own perceptions of language. People use different
varieties of language, depending on the setting, their relationship to the
person to whom they are speaking, and the function of the interaction.
A register is a situationally appropriate form of a language. Sociolinguistic
concepts such as register are important to consider when assessing language
proficiency and providing second language instruction. A person learning a
second language may have a good accent or control of syntax and still lack the
ability to function in real-life situations. People often experience this, when
they learn a second language in a classroom setting and then attempt to enter
into the quick give-and-take of an informal gathering among friends.
Then there is Slang. The word slang is commonly used to refer, somewhat
pejoratively, to nonstandard speech. Speakers of one variety of English, for
example, may comment that speakers of another variety “speak slang.” From a
professional perspective, slang has a more precise meaning. According to one
linguist, “One of the main defining features of ‘slang’ appears to be
ephemeral nature.” (Wardhaugh, p 165) In other words, slang is a usage that is
popular for a while and then fades away. In some cases, however, slang can
become acceptable and enter into common usage. In that case, it’s no longer a
slang word.
Language is a system of arbitrary symbols used for communication. People have
unfounded and emotional biases about language, but in fact, all languages are
responsive to the communication needs of their speakers and are equally suited
for communication. Standards are arbitrary and determined by the dominant group
in any society. Understanding the nature of language and objectifying it as a
tool are essential to dual language instruction.
Works Cited
1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Committee on
Language Report, ASCHA, 1983: 6-25
2. Bloom, L and Laheym Language Development and Language Disorders.New York, John Wiley & Sons. Pgs. 15-28 1978
3. Chavez, L Struggling To Keep Spanish In U.S. Pure
4. Cipollone, Keiser, Vasishith Language Files: Definitions of
Linguistics Ohio State University Press 7th Ed. Pgs 5-26 1989
5. Crawford, James Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory
and Practice.
6. Doerner, W.R. Troubles of a Tongue in Crises Newsweek 1987 Sept
14 p. 49
McCrum, Cram and MacNeil The Story of English New York, Elizabeth,
Sifton Books (Viking) pp. 62-80 1986
7. Troike, Muriel, Saville, Bilingual Children: A Resource Document
forBilingualSchooling In The United States. New York McGraw Hill
pgs, 165-168 1976
8. Wardhaugh, R, Investigating Language: Central Problems In
Linguistics
9. Wilbur, R, The Linguistic Description of American Sign Language.
Pps.7-31 1980