Bilingualism’s Impact on Cognition and Learning
Bilingualism and Cognitive Development
The evidence is not conclusive as to whether a linguistic advantage transfers to more general cognitive skills. McLaughlin’s review of the literature, for example, concludes:
It seems clear that the child who has mastered two languages has a linguistic advantage over the monolingual child. Bilingual children become aware that there are two ways of saying the same thing. But does this sensitivity to the lexical and formal aspects of language generalize to cognitive functioning? There is no conclusive answer to this question – mainly because it has proven so difficult to apply the necessary controls in research (1984, p. 44).
Additive vs. Subtractive Bilingualism
An important characteristic of bilingual children in more recent studies (conducted since the early 1960s) is that, for the most part, they were developing what has been termed an additive form of bilingualism (Lambert, 1975). In other words, they were adding a second language to their repertoire of skills at no cost to the development of their first language. Consequently, these children were in the process of attaining a relatively high level of both fluency and literacy in their two languages.
The children in these studies tended to come either from majority language groups whose first language was strongly reinforced in society (e.g., English-speakers in French immersion programs) or from minority groups whose first languages were reinforced by bilingual programs in the school. Minority children who lack this educational support for literacy development in L1 frequently develop a subtractive form of bilingualism, in which L1 skills are replaced by L2.
Benefits and Pedagogical Implications
In summary, the conclusion that emerges from research on the academic, linguistic, and intellectual effects of bilingualism can be stated as follows:
The development of additive bilingual and biliteracy skills entails no negative consequences for children’s academic, linguistic, or intellectual development. On the contrary, although not conclusive, the evidence points in the direction of subtle metalinguistic, academic, and intellectual benefits for bilingual children.
This conclusion suggests that educators in immersion programs should be conscious of the potential for enhancing students’ awareness of language by encouraging them to compare and contrast aspects of their two languages and by having students carry out individual and group projects focusing on structural, sociolinguistic, and sociopolitical aspects of language. In other words, language and discourse should become a focus of study (i.e., a theme) within the immersion curriculum.
Examples of Curriculum Content:
- Puns, riddles, jokes
- Code-switching, translation
- Language conventions of popular music and poetry
- Accents, dialects
- Language of persuasion in advertisements and politics
- Sign language
- And more.
Focusing students’ attention on language and discourse is likely to enhance the natural tendency of bilinguals to become more aware of their linguistic operations.
The Linguistic Interdependence Principle
This implies that the separation of languages that characterizes most immersion programs should become less rigid as students progress through the elementary grades.
Evaluations of bilingual programs for both majority and minority students consistently show that students instructed for all or part of the day through a minority language experience no long-term academic retardation in the majority language (for reviews of these data, see Appel and Muysken, 1987; Cummins and Swain, 1986; Krashen and Biber, 1988). The fact that there is little relationship between the amount of instructional time through the majority language and academic achievement in that language strongly suggests that first and second language academic skills are interdependent, i.e., manifestations of a common underlying proficiency.
The interdependence principle has been stated formally as follows:
To the extent that instruction in Lx is effective in promoting proficiency in Lx, transfer of this proficiency to Ly will occur provided there is adequate exposure to Ly (either in school or environment) and adequate motivation to learn Ly.
In concrete terms, what this principle means is that, for example, in a Japanese-English bilingual program in Japan, English instruction that develops English reading and writing skills is not just developing English skills; it is also developing a deeper conceptual and linguistic proficiency that contributes significantly to the development of literacy in the majority language (Japanese). In other words, although the surface aspects of different languages (e.g., pronunciation, fluency) are clearly separate, there is an underlying cognitive/academic proficiency that is common across languages. This “common underlying proficiency” makes possible the transfer of cognitive/academic or literacy-related skills across languages.
Pedagogical Frameworks in Immersion Programs
Two problems that have characterized the implementation of French immersion programs in Canada can be traced in part to the transmission-oriented pedagogical approach that has often been practiced in immersion. When teachers are asked why they do not implement more cooperative learning and project-based strategies, they usually indicate concern that students will use English in these activities.
The use of L1 by students is seen as contravening the basic premises of immersion. It rarely occurs to teachers to permit students to use their L1 in these activities for discussion and initial draft purposes but to require that final drafts of writing or other project output be in the target language. The principle of language separation and vestiges of “direct method” teaching approaches in immersion programs thus sometimes result in pedagogy that is less cognitively challenging and creative than many educators would consider appropriate. The provision of comprehensible input in L2 is interpreted as the promotion of literal rather than critical comprehension.